A taxing concern
By Medicine Hat News Opinon on October 17, 2019.
cgallant@medicinehatnews.com@collingallant Death and taxes are inevitable. Both also lead to a lot of questions, but at least one is relatively straight forward. The latter is also at the heart of most conversations during the current federal election, couched in terms of affordability by several major parties and program development by others. For 100 years, income tax revenue has paid the bills of government as each year citizens navigate a system that morphs, expands or contracts each time a federal budget is tabled. As well, there are currently five election platforms – each with a raft of tax changes, promises and goodies – to comprehend, then keep straight when Canadians not only vote, but also prepare returns next spring. At this point it’s often suggested that the whole tax code is thrown out in favour of a flat tax that’s easy to understand no matter how it affects governmental budgets or a citizen’s pocketbook. This is a fringe opinion, though it appears that taxes are actually going out of vogue, if recent elections here and elsewhere are considered. Like with most things, U.S. President Donald Trump essentially blew up the baseline with a massive tax cut two years ago. In Alberta, the new provincial government refuses to consider taxes as anything but a thing to cut. Spending was the sole focus of a new report ahead of next week’s provincial budget. The Gordian Knot of tax regulations is thrown into the pressure cooker of electoral politics that concludes next Monday. The Peoples Party of Canada is obviously vying for a certain type of conservative voter and vows to cut program spending to reduce taxes. Conservatives plan to reintroduce specific tax writeoffs (maybe you’ve heard about kids’ hockey lessons or bus passes), cancel the carbon price and install new incentives aimed to boost the economy and solve the issue of greenhouse gas emissions. The New Democrats want a new tax on those with a net worth of $20 million or more. The Liberals, like any incumbent, are left touting a scholarly defence of deficits, a dull accounting of how the child tax benefit beats tax writeoffs and explaining the benefits of a national price on carbon that a lot of people don’t want to hear, let alone believe. No matter Monday’s result we’ll all be filing our T-1 next April and probably be unhappy with the result. And a move to a national price on carbon has moved tax grumbling from paydays and April 30 to make it a near national past time. That’s despite rebates and other grants, and despite action on climate change that a majority of Canadians see as a critical issue. The Conservatives clearly take issue with its effectiveness. The carbon levy, or carbon tax, is hard to understand, much maligned, and a measure that Canadians seem to have made up their minds about, possibly because of its complexity. In an age when successful politicians tout the carrot not the stick, it’s really out of step with today’s winning campaigns. Some taxes work as a disincentive, such as levies on cigarettes, while some tax measures, such as RRSPs, small business and farm rates, promote societal good. Some seem contradictory, some are complementary. We all know that people don’t like taxes, but Monday’s vote could answer the question at the heart of the carbon pricing debate. Are we still willing to trust the Government of Canada to tackle major and emerging problems? More importantly, are we willing to pay for it? (Collin Gallant is a News reporter. You can contact him by email at cgallant@medicinehatnews.com) 27-26
