By a BIG Margin.

[steven lloyd]

There are many reasons to have a healthy blend of income tax and consumption tax + user fees. And most of them go beyond the usual "They just want to squeeze us to death" principle and onto more complicated issues such as aging population, growing gray market, and ever growing problem of avoiding income taxes. A healthy blend of consumption taxes and user fees does help with that. And I must say, it seems much fairer to me.

I agree with that. There does have to be some real thought put into what will be fair though. For example, the carbon tax obviously unfairly targets rural people who have no choice but to drive their vehicles – for employment, and even often for survival. On the other hand, user fees can prevent use of scarce resources or target those who use specific services. These still require some thought and accountability when determining where and how to implement. It really seems to me that this government just sped ahead in a reckless and haphazard manner, not only in making cuts with no thought to first understanding what purpose and ultimate objective, or in introducing new user fees and consumption taxes. I would have preferred some demonstration of prudence and first trying to understand the links between the pieces and the big picture.

It’s sad that the first time in BC’s history we finally had a politician with the courage to campaign on a platform of straightforward honesty and he was saddled by the albatross of Glen Clark and faced with a snakeoil salesman and an electorate primed to be bought off easy. A very brief bright spot in NDP history, and nothing even close since (particularly with the selection of Dix over Farnsworth as leader).

But let me add that I do like the idea of flat tax - where everybody pays their share as opposed to punishing achievers and promoting under-performance.

I agree 100 %. I had an economics professor who was writing his doctorate on this subject and had come up with some criticisms. My economics degree was many, many years ago though and I forget what they were. I’d certainly like to hear some if anyone can provide any. I’d also be interested in knowing what the overall impact to government’s tax revenue would be compared to the current system (leaving user fees and consumption taxes out of the equation so we can have a starting point for comparison – ceterus parabus, or “all things remaining equal” as the economic professors like to qualify before explaining simple models of economic behaviour). This all being said, I also believe there would still be room for some consumption tax and user fees – just more prudently thought out and implemented.

[steven lloyd]

It is a rather interesting position demonstrated by Mr. Steven Lloyd. Mr. Lloyd promotes “progressively” thinking people and yet the moment they have a position that disagrees with Steven he will suddenly accused them of lacking those same “progressive” thinking skills.

But the forum members have been saying it for years.

Wow. How sad and desperate. Is this really the best you can come up with ?

[Captain Awesome]

For example, the carbon tax obviously unfairly targets rural people who have no choice but to drive their vehicles – for employment, and even often for survival.

Oh, don't get me started on Carbon Tax, I start sounding like Nabsy (not a good thing).

But in reality, it's impossible to create a tax that's fair for everybody. Correction - it's impossible to create a tax that impacts everybody equally. There will always be somebody who gets a crappy deal. But reducing income tax and introducing user fees is a good step, just like I said. And even consumption tax like HST in that light is a better deal than cranking income tax for everybody.

[Sn0man]

But in reality, it's impossible to create a tax that's fair for everybody.

IMO - the only tax that is fair for everybody is a consumption tax. Eliminate all personal income taxes and solely have a consumption tax. Then the people who spend more pay more, while the people who spend less pay less. Fair.

[Captain Awesome]

IMO - the only tax that is fair for everybody is a consumption tax. Eliminate all personal income taxes and solely have a consumption tax.

Extremes are never good. Life isn't black and white.

[steven lloyd]

IMO - the only tax that is fair for everybody is a consumption tax. Eliminate all personal income taxes and solely have a consumption tax. Then the people who spend more pay more, while the people who spend less pay less. Fair.

Bad, bad idea for fairly obvious reasons. It is easy to say that the people who spend more pay more, while the people who spend less pay less is fair, but that assumes everyone has the ability to pay in the first place.

[steven lloyd]

But in reality, it's impossible to create a tax that's fair for everybody. Correction - it's impossible to create a tax that impacts everybody equally. There will always be somebody who gets a crappy deal. But reducing income tax and introducing user fees is a good step, just like I said. And even consumption tax like HST in that light is a better deal than cranking income tax for everybody.

I don't know. It's pretty hard to argue that a flat tax doesn't impact everyone equally - at least percentage wise. Although I can guess there are ways you can suggest there is some way the impact is not equal (and would be interested in those examples). Reducing income tax and introducing user fees can be a good step, if thought out prudently as opposed to recklessly implemented. Cranking income tax across the board would not be fun, but might be mitigated by a flat tax (again, I need to know more about the impacts of that option). However, bottom line is that we have incurred some significant debt and cost demands over the last few decades (much of it under the care of “fiscally prudent” right-wing governments and the long term costs resulting from their short-sighted fiscal policies), and we have to collectively accept that at some point someone has to start paying the bills. This is why I get such a big laugh out of:

Gordon Campbell was the best premier in Canada last year — by a big margin — when judged on financial management criteria, according to a study released today by the Fraser Institute.

As I already stated, “it is often easy to recognize the bias in reports produced by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and question their political motives. The real challenge for extreme right-wingers is being able to recognize that the Fraser Institute is equally as biased and to question their political motives.”

As a result of some of Campbell’s reckless and haphazard cuts to the public service, and the inevitable admittance by government that fully trained and experienced staff who left in disgust have to now be replaced, we are now spending even more money in hiring and training new people to replace them. It will take roughly a year to get some of these new hires up to speed (at salary) and will involve travel to the Justice Institute (with accommodation and expenses) to attend training programs. It will be a year before they are managing the caseloads of the people they are replacing (while the rest of us are working overtime). How much money do you think we saved?

As another slightly unrelated example, I met a client today who is on disability assistance with multiple sclerosis. He gets $750 a month and his rent is $400 (don’t ask me how he secured that sweet deal). He requires catheters to urinate and welfare will provide him with enough money to buy a box of 100 (about $100 a box I was told). How many times do you pee in a month? You’re only supposed to use each catheter once, but out of obvious necessity this guy boils his used catheters in water and bleach. About once a month or two he ends up in the hospital for an extended stay with a bladder infection. How much money do you think we’re saving on this guy?

These are easy specific examples and there are hundreds, no , thousands of them. I could go on and get into the examples of violent mental health clients who we are “treating” through incarceration (because mental health does not have the funding or resources to deal with them) and tell you how much that is costing us, but the fact of the matter is I could provide you with example after example of how the short-sighted thinking of this government has incurred costs we will be paying for generations.

Gordon Campbell was the best premier in Canada last year — by a big margin — when judged on financial management criteria, according to a study released today by the Fraser Institute.

Like I already said, “it is often easy to recognize the bias in reports produced by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and question their political motives. The real challenge for extreme right-wingers is being able to recognize that the Fraser Institute is equally as biased and to question their political motives. We will be paying for the fiscal ineptitude of this government for generations to come, although somehow the blame will be placed somewhere else.

Must have been that sundeck.

[The Green Barbarian]

But in reality, it's impossible to create a tax that's fair for everybody.

IMO - the only tax that is fair for everybody is a consumption tax. Eliminate all personal income taxes and solely have a consumption tax. Then the people who spend more pay more, while the people who spend less pay less. Fair.

You mean like an HST? What a great idea!

As SL points out - it's a bad idea for those who can't pay, but that issue can be dealt with by bringing minimum income standards (ie - if you are below the minimum you don't pay the tax/fee, or you get rebates - hmmm....just like the HST - wish we had thought a bit harder before getting rid of it - who am I kidding - I wish people had even minimally thought about it).

[Rwede]

But in reality, it's impossible to create a tax that's fair for everybody.

IMO - the only tax that is fair for everybody is a consumption tax. Eliminate all personal income taxes and solely have a consumption tax. Then the people who spend more pay more, while the people who spend less pay less. Fair.

You mean like an HST? What a great idea!

As SL points out - it's a bad idea for those who can't pay, but that issue can be dealt with by bringing minimum income standards (ie - if you are below the minimum you don't pay the tax/fee, or you get rebates - hmmm....just like the HST - wish we had thought a bit harder before getting rid of it - who am I kidding - I wish people had even minimally thought about it).

But GB, they lied, so all the smart people tossed the fair tax in order to bring back the unfair tax. No one will ever lie to those smart people again! That'll teach those liars a lesson, especially when the smart people pay more tax to the liars with the unfair tax!

[Fritzthecat]

But in reality, it's impossible to create a tax that's fair for everybody.

IMO - the only tax that is fair for everybody is a consumption tax. Eliminate all personal income taxes and solely have a consumption tax. Then the people who spend more pay more, while the people who spend less pay less. Fair.

You mean like an HST? What a great idea!

As SL points out - it's a bad idea for those who can't pay, but that issue can be dealt with by bringing minimum income standards (ie - if you are below the minimum you don't pay the tax/fee, or you get rebates - hmmm....just like the HST - wish we had thought a bit harder before getting rid of it - who am I kidding - I wish people had even minimally thought about it).

But GB, they lied, so all the smart people tossed the fair tax in order to bring back the unfair tax. No one will ever lie to those smart people again! That'll teach those liars a lesson, especially when the smart people pay more tax to the liars with the unfair tax!

Fair for whom?

[Rwede]

Fair for whom?

Everyone in the civilized world except the NDPer unionists that lobbied against it, I guess.

Low income earners are always the losers when the unionists get involved. Strip the poor of the cash that the HST put in their pockets so that the unionists get a cheaper round of golf on Saturday, now that's FAIR.

[NAB]

Aside from petty local BC political issues, has anyone seen tonights TV news (particularly CBC)? Not necessarily word for word, but to the affect.....

"Obama hits the road with his new job creation pitch. Is he throwing Canada under the bus?"

Looks like the Canadian hornets nest is stirring again in response, and if he proceeds with his plan things could get rather uncomfortable on the economic front here, at least for some Canadian industries and suppliers.

Nab

[Smurf]

Here's an interesting little article:

http://www.globalwinnipeg.com/canada/ns ... story.html

One thing I did note:

Niels Veldhuis, a senior economist and vice-president of policy at the Fraser Institute, said he can't understand Steele's reaction to the report considering how well Nova Scotia fares.

He said Dexter's NDP government has increased spending at a pace that is lower than the rate of economic growth.

"That actually is a model to the other premiers, so congrats for that," said Veldhuis. "And while he is running a deficit, it's quite small. It's one of the smallest in the country.

"Obviously, he does well in the report card and I don't understand why the finance minister would have such a visceral reaction to it without actually understanding what's in the report."

I'm not an NDP supporter but it is interesting to see they have much different spending habits than our current government. I guess it just goes to show anyone can do it if they have the right people, nothing to do with the party.