BC NDP promises surplus

[gordon_as]

I don't believe that any more than any of the other partisan rhetoric and drivel posted by the Christy boosters.

Here is a good night gift for you :

[OldIslander]

If you expect anyone to believe this, you might also include a source.

[hobbyguy]

When I said that the NDP fail to do careful analysis I meant it. No amount of political goofy NDP attack on ICBC will change anything. ICBC rates are being driven up by claims costs - that how insurance rates work.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/icbc-insurance-rates-distracted-driving-1.3740119

"The crash rate in B.C. rose to 300,000 accidents last year, a jump of 15 per cent from 2013. It's part of a North-America-wide trend, which has insurers from Kansas to Quebec shaking their heads.

ICBC says injury claims have skyrocketed, as has the number of claims for vehicle damage. In fact, the number of vehicles on our roads has also gone up drastically — topping three million last year."

Not only that, but if you look at where parts costs have gone, you see that a "minor" fender bender for modern stylish cars are just incredible. A headlight assembly that was $200 eight years ago? About $1,500 for the new fancy one.

Then if you care to actually look at the coverage ICBC provides, you find there is only one other province that has no fault insurance - Ontario, where rates are about 30% higher.

Then if you look at the Saskatchewan model, which the BC NDP failed to learn from, you discover that only 26% of the revenue comes from Saskatchewan. They operate in other markets (most notably Alberta and the Maritimes) where they are not subject to political stiff, and can use those revenues to keep a lid on Saskatchewan rates.

So three major decisions by the BC NDP have major impacts on the rates: 1. To operate solely in BC and 2. To supply no-fault insurance and 3. to limit ICBC to auto insurance.

I am fine with point 2. No fault insurance, while it costs more, is a better value for consumers, and provides better coverage.

Point 3 drives up costs because the revenue stream is narrow, and if other insurance (like home insurance) were offered, a good chunk of administrative costs would be spread over a much larger revenue stream.

So what do we see from the NDP - a poorly thought out "bumper sticker" to cap rates - without an "and then what?". The BC Libs won't change ICBC, but the NDP really don't have a plan at all, just a gripe about rates. A cap on rates will simply mean that taxes will have to go up elsewhere to subsidize ICBC and does nothing, zero, to help keep actual costs down.

So if you are concerned about ICBC rates - yell and honk at the idiot next to you that is texting while driving, and don't look to either party to provide an optimum solution.

And recognize that the BC NDP have no plan as usual.

[BeingHuman]

Sticking to the topic of this discussion thread, I am not surprised the NDP are promising a surplus as part of their election platform, after all, they know about surpluses. "The NDP left a surplus topping $1.5 billion to the BC Liberals in 2001, this according to the figures in the binder recorded for the fiscal year 2000-01, the last full fiscal year of NDP government!"

https://thetyee.ca/Views/2005/04/20/Cam ... ledPublic/

On the other hand, when British Columbia first joined Canada in 1871, we were debt free as a province. Fast forward to 2001, and it took 130 years of successive, irresponsible, BC governments to grow our provincial debt to $33.6 Billion dollars. All of those governments, including the NDP, were responsible for growing that debt to $33.6 billion over those 130 years.

Cue the BC Liberals who managed to double our province’s debt in just 16 years. That’s right folks, what took 130 years to accumulate $33.6 billion dollars in debt, this BC Liberal government managed to double to $66.4 billion in just 16 short years.

http://www.debtclock.ca/provincial-debt ... ia-s-debt/

[Urban Cowboy]

I don't believe that any more than any of the other partisan rhetoric and drivel posted by the Christy boosters.

Partisan rhetoric and drivel, LOL, says the person to those who actually provide verifiable proof of statements made, as opposed to continuous rhetoric and drivel.

[Hurtlander]

When I said that the NDP fail to do careful analysis I meant it. No amount of political goofy NDP attack on ICBC will change anything. ICBC rates are being driven up by claims costs - that how insurance rates work.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/icbc-insurance-rates-distracted-driving-1.3740119

"The crash rate in B.C. rose to 300,000 accidents last year, a jump of 15 per cent from 2013. It's part of a North-America-wide trend, which has insurers from Kansas to Quebec shaking their heads.

ICBC says injury claims have skyrocketed, as has the number of claims for vehicle damage. In fact, the number of vehicles on our roads has also gone up drastically — topping three million last year."

Not only that, but if you look at where parts costs have gone, you see that a "minor" fender bender for modern stylish cars are just incredible. A headlight assembly that was $200 eight years ago? About $1,500 for the new fancy one.

Then if you care to actually look at the coverage ICBC provides, you find there is only one other province that has no fault insurance - Ontario, where rates are about 30% higher.

Then if you look at the Saskatchewan model, which the BC NDP failed to learn from, you discover that only 26% of the revenue comes from Saskatchewan. They operate in other markets (most notably Alberta and the Maritimes) where they are not subject to political stiff, and can use those revenues to keep a lid on Saskatchewan rates.

So three major decisions by the BC NDP have major impacts on the rates: 1. To operate solely in BC and 2. To supply no-fault insurance and 3. to limit ICBC to auto insurance.

I am fine with point 2. No fault insurance, while it costs more, is a better value for consumers, and provides better coverage.

Point 3 drives up costs because the revenue stream is narrow, and if other insurance (like home insurance) were offered, a good chunk of administrative costs would be spread over a much larger revenue stream.

So what do we see from the NDP - a poorly thought out "bumper sticker" to cap rates - without an "and then what?". The BC Libs won't change ICBC, but the NDP really don't have a plan at all, just a gripe about rates. A cap on rates will simply mean that taxes will have to go up elsewhere to subsidize ICBC and does nothing, zero, to help keep actual costs down.

So if you are concerned about ICBC rates - yell and honk at the idiot next to you that is texting while driving, and don't look to either party to provide an optimum solution.

And recognize that the BC NDP have no plan as usual.

All you're doing is repeating BC Liberal talking points, those talking points don't tell the whole story.. Due to legislated changes that were made in 2010, ICBC is now legislated to turn over $150,000,000.00 per year of optional coverage operating capital to government, giving ICBC no other choice but to keep raising rates to meet this requirement. The government basically admitted that the number one reason ICBC rates go up every year is because of this requirement when they recently made the election promise to not take the $150,000,000.00 per year over the next three years to help keep ICBC rates from going up...Its my opinion that if the liberals win this election, they will likely break that promise.

[maryjane48]

plus he didnt mention a peep about the money bclubs just scooped which should have gone into lower rates lol. um thats how govt insurance is supposed to work .and if it isnt , time boot the govt .same as bchydro , gramma cant keep rubbin sticks together make heat

[hobbyguy]

As I have pointed out many times, it was the BC NDP that started the practice of using crown corporations as cash cows. Now the NDPers are whining about that practice.

The base facts remain that there is zero way the NDP can deliver their promise of a surplus by cutting off the dividends from crown corporations, eliminating MSP premiums, and putting that in the context of the "more of everything for free" promises, and the minor revenue increase from the tax hikes they have proposed.

So what to really expect? Well lets look at the results from a long serving NDP government - Manitoba. 2016 income tax rates:

Manitoba: BC
First $31,000 - 10.8% First $38,210 - 5.07%
$31,00-67,000 - 12.75% $38,210-76,421 - 7.7%
Over $67,000 - 17.4% $76,421-87,421 - 10.5%
$87,421-106,543 - 12.29%
over $106,543 - 14.7%

So essentially, under the Man. NDP the taxes are less progressive and MUCH higher. Please note that Manitoba, under the NDP had many, if not all of the same issues as BC e.g http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/winnipeg-er-wait-times-still-worst-in-canada-1.3873571 and http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-foster-care-questioned-after-girl-s-vicious-attack-1.3018861.

That just points out the fallacies in the NDP approach, trying to convince voter's that there is a "free lunch". Under the BC NDP you can expect that there will be significant income tax increases. That will have all kinds of ripple effects. Such as the impacts on withdrawals from RRSPs, RIFs, LIFs etc., it would also mean that the government will get less revenue from folks like me who are in a position to avoid income tax rate increases (so no skin off my nose, but I don't mind paying a bit more to keep taxes on low income working folks nominal).

IF you analyze carefully (I know that is trouble for the NDP) - a low income working person is better off under the 2017 MSP fee schedule than they would be under a Manitoba system where it is added into income tax. But wait, if make $62,000 in BC you would get hit with $1,800 in MSP - ok, but wait again, in Manitoba you would pay $7,300 income tax, while in BC you would pay $3,768 income tax plus $1,800 MSP = $5,568. And lets not worry about anybody who makes more than $62,000 - it just gets worse.

Right now, folks like me who pay very little income tax have to pay MSP - and I have no problem with that. Under the typical NDP system like Manitoba, I wind up "free riding" even though I don't want to.

The worst about all of this is that the magic promises of the BC NDP will cost a lot more than what Manitoba offers. If you are going to balance the budget with all the BC NDP "everything will be free" promises, you would probably be looking at income tax rates 25% or more higher than Manitoba.

[Hurtlander]

As I have pointed out many times, it was the BC NDP that started the practice of using crown corporations as cash cows. Now the NDPers are whining about that practice.
.

Under what circumstances did this happen ? It wasn't until 2010 that legislation was actually passed making it mandatory for ICBC to hand over $150,000,000.00 per year.

[Urban Cowboy]

NDP didn't bother with legislation, they just took it.

[gordon_as]

If you expect anyone to believe this, you might also include a source.

Oh , how about CBC news ?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... -1.4054593

I know many were hoping it came from the tyee , so they could immediately label it "fake news" .

[mr.bandaid]

Really doesn't matter where it came from the cheerleaders will call it fake news anyhow.

[Hurtlander]

As I have pointed out many times, it was the BC NDP that started the practice of using crown corporations as cash cows. Now the NDPers are whining about that practice.
.

Yes the former NDP government started the practice of taking dividend payments, bases on a formula, from BC Hydro..However the former NDP government DID NOT take dividend money from ICBC, instead the NDP gave some of ICBC surplus back to ICBC rate payers with good driving records, I remember getting the cheque in the mail. The BC Liberals refused to continue this practice, instead the Liberals passed legislation that forced ICBC to turn over a guaranteed set amount, NOT based on a formula, each year to general revenue. It was the Liberals that began using ICBC as a cash cow, and the Liberals were more than happy to continue to use BC Hydro as a cash cow.

[logicalview]

I know many were hoping it came from the tyee , so they could immediately label it "fake news" .

If the Tyee stopped publishing fake news, then people wouldn't call what they write fake news. See, they kind of are the ones to blame here.

[logicalview]

instead the NDP gave some of ICBC surplus back to ICBC rate payers with good driving records, I remember getting the cheque in the mail..

and somehow this wasn't consider vote-buying by the brain-washed NDP masses?? How?