# Province agrees to blend transit tax with PST



## 1980z28 (Mar 4, 2010)

opinions

http://news.google.ca/news/url?sa=T...7IHACw&usg=AFQjCNF5yvbZPmdymRYpq8sRfyRyHnQglg


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Probably just an excuse to raise the entire province...I'm sure they'll say "it's to avoid confusion" or to prevent people from shopping just outside the zone which would cause "a local economic downturn", or they will say it's illegal for a city to have a different pst...or whatever.

Of course, I hear Alberta is now considering a pst, for the "good" of the province of course...


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Regardless of the rhetoric used, such as "blended tax", "revenue neutral", "carbon recovery" etc. taxes are going up coast to coast.
Net, at the end of the day, the price paid by the consumers for goods and services are going up.
Combined with income tax increases means less true disposable income left for savings.
Which creates another excuse by governments to levy more payroll taxes such as Ontario's ORPP.
It has become a vicious cycle.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Heard a union rep talking once...instead of a rollback to their union's wages, they wanted the government to increase taxes instead...

The logic being, it won't affect their pay...

Except they'll have it taken off as income tax instead...along with everyone else.

So, instead of getting paid $95 (and taxed $45) they want to be paid $100 (and taxed $50). Then they want a raise to offset the higher taxes, to be paid for by increasing the taxes...

At least then they can brag about how they got everyone a raise...and complain about everything costing more.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Just a Guy said:


> Heard a union rep talking once...instead of a rollback to their union's wages, they wanted the government to increase taxes instead...
> The logic being, it won't affect their pay...
> Except they'll have it taken off as income tax instead...along with everyone else.


LOL, that is diabolical...because it increases their pension entitlements.
Pensions are a % of final salary (or avg. of last 5), therefore, higher base salaries lead to higher pensions, even though it might mean slightly higher tax bill at this time.

It is absolutely correct as you explained it...the income tax does not matter because they will keep getting raises to offset the tax.
And general taxes will keep going up to pay for that, which is exactly what's been happening.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

This article really explained it well I thouht...

http://www.easysafemoney.com/why-raises-dont-work-explained-its-as-easy-as-pie/


----------



## Charlie (May 20, 2011)

I don't think there's any surprise here. It would have been a nightmare to have a new set of rules and admin for this.

As I understand it, this will be the first municipal sales tax (ad on) in Canada. It's really popular in the states, and other Canadian cities are watching closely. I may make a real mess of our sales tax environment. What fun!


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The OAS started out as being paid for by special tax levies, which were changed several times over the years.

The funds were kept in the Old Age Security Fund and paid benefits from that fund.

Eventually the government seized the funds and amalgamated the cash into the general fund, from which benefits were paid.

Years later, that is all but forgotten now, as Harper has decided the OAS is unaffordable.

But you can bet he won't be eliminating the special tax levy or returning the trust fund to Canadians.

The same thing happened to lottery and gaming revenues in Ontario, which was introduced as separate money to fund arenas, community centers, and hospitals.

The government recently dumped on the horse racing industry, which is why slot palaces were supposedly approved to help finance.

I suspect some transit will be paid for.........but after a period of time, the government will say they can't afford it, but the tax levy will remain.

I like stand alone funds designated for specific purpose.

The politicians like to lump everything into general revenues so they can steal from funds to finance their ideology.

http://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/MR/mr58-e.htm


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

the easiest way to get around the dedicated funds issue is to cut back on the general funds that were going to the project originally.

For example, transit was funded out of revenues before they call for a "special dedicated tax". As the special tax comes in, you can now quietly cut back your original financing and show how the "dedicated funds are all being used for transit", but somehow, due to escalating costs usually, the funds are insufficient and we need to increase them...but see, we can prove they are all being used for transit...


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

And after a few years, any spending from what was supposed to be the original fund gets renamed to ..........."entitlements", as they have done with the OAS.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

In counterpoint to the 'ever rising taxes' meme, it is interesting to see how much public sector spending has fallen in Canada over the past few decades:










http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/great-right-north


----------



## bayview (Nov 6, 2011)

Local, provincial and Federal officials all they know is to raise taxes and cut back public expenditure and blame it on the previous administration. Budget deficits --> raise taxes....No significant improvement...Deficits..More taxes...Yes it is a merry go round. 

(Off topic but still about taxes: One point that really annoys me when I first arrived in Canada 3 years ago is why tag retail prices before including PST/HST. Only the gas pump prices are inclusive. I hve been to so many major cities in the world, I still can't recall one that do it this way. It seems so counter intuitive.)


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

The real elephant in the room is population growth. It has been unsustainable for years in the Greater Vancouver area, which means that roads and transit infrastructure become obsolete almost as fast as they are built. This necessitates an ever-inreasing burden of taxation to pay for new projects. Congestion and taxes will continue to increase until population growth is addressed.

Since the growth is almost entirely due to immigration, we need to look at a targeted immigration strategy that lifts the burden away from areas like Vancouver and toward less populated centres.


----------



## Davis (Nov 11, 2014)

Bayview, is there evidence that taxes as a % of GDP have risen in Canada?

Nathan79: the problem is that immigrants want to go where there are jobs, and where they have family to help them get jobs. Immigrants are understandably loathe to go where they have fewer job prospects, like Canadians are.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

Unfortunately, there aren't that many jobs in BC right now. We already have more population than there are jobs. Most people I know are struggling to find or keep jobs, even though they have experience. Two of my friends were let go from jobs they held for 16 years because the company was downsizing and cutting costs. There is so much competition even for low-end warehouse jobs, and most of these are part-time.

Of course, when you increase the population the number of jobs increases with it, but these are mainly minimum wage service jobs.

I bet if we told immigrants they could make 100K in the oil sands, or $18/hr working at Tim Hortons in Fort MacMurray, they'd probably be interested.

Canada is one of the most generous countries in the world when it comes to immigration, but we're not obligated to let immigrants settle wherever they like. Vancouver is a very small geographical area hemmed in by mountains on two sides, the ocean, and the US border.

I think if people are going to complain about taxes they need to understand how we got to this point. The bigger a city gets, the higher taxes get and the more expensive everything becomes. There's no way around it. We need to have a discussion about growth and how to manage it, but politicians are strangely silent on this.


----------



## bayview (Nov 6, 2011)

Davis said:


> Bayview, is there evidence that taxes as a % of GDP have risen in Canada?


Sorry I missed this post, hence late reply.

I guess as a % of GDP, taxes most likely have fallen or flatlined at worst boosted from oil revenue over the past years. What are you alluding to?


----------



## Davis (Nov 11, 2014)

bayview said:


> Local, provincial and Federal officials all they know is to raise taxes and cut back public expenditure and blame it on the previous administration. Budget deficits --> raise taxes....No significant improvement...Deficits..More taxes...Yes it is a merry go round.


I was referring to this comment.


----------

