But don’t hold your breath that new progressive tax changes are in the offing.

First, a closer look at that expert panel: You can find the government’s announcement of the panel’s terms of reference and a list of the panel members here. Sadly, the panel is not mandated to examine the fairness of the overall tax system, nor is it to propose ideas to restore the BC tax system’s progressivity (something that is sorely needed, as we found in this CCPA study last summer).

Rather, the mandate is narrowly to advise on how to improve the “business competitiveness” of BC’s tax system, and to offer recommendations on “administrative improvements to streamline the Provincial Sales Tax.”

The membership of the “expert” panel is entirely made up of business representatives. Not a single person on the panel is an academic economist (the one person with an academic connection is Grace Wong, a former assistant dean with UBC’s Sauder School of Business). There are no representatives from labour or the community or non-profit sectors. The panel chair, Sarah Morgan-Silvester, is the current chancellor of UBC, but has spent most of her career as a senior banking executive.  In short, there is not a single person on the panel one might expect to offer a dissenting voice ­– a perspective that is interested in anything other than how to lower taxes for the corporate sector.

And how about that cool new online BC Budget simulation tool for the public? You can access the “My BC Budget” website here.

Now I love online tools, and I’m told I’m somewhat nerdy when it comes to the BC Budget, so I was all ready to geek-out on this.  And thus, my disappointment is deep.

The stated intent of the online tool is to:

“Let people see the effect of raising and lowering revenues and spending on the provincial budget, with the goal of eliminating the 2013-14 deficit, which was forecast in September to be $458 million. Once people have achieved a balanced budget, they can send their solutions to the finance minister with their comments. The website also includes informative facts about the budget and is one of several ways the government is consulting with British Columbians in the lead-up to Budget 2012.”

The government’s ill-advised (and much-amended) balanced budget legislation commits it to balance the 2013/14 budget (an entirely arbitrary deadline). And so, only when someone has used the online simulator to model a balanced budget does the tool allow you to submit your “solution”.

But the tool is much sillier (and nefarious) than that.

You can reduce any tax you want by as much as 100%, but you can’t increase any tax by more than 10% (which is certainly interesting, given the stated intent of trying to balance the budget).

When you start to fiddle with personal income tax levels, the “information” window kindly informs you that, “BC families generally have one of the lowest overall tax burdens in Canada, and BC currently has the lowest provincial personal income taxes in Canada for individuals earning up to $119,000 a year.”

What’s more, while you can adjust personal income taxes overall, the simulator does not allow you to adjust the income tax brackets (let alone propose one or more new upper-income ones, as I recently did here). Meaning, you cannot modify the progressivity of the tax system (the distribution of taxes by income) – Minister Falcon apparently isn’t interested in hearing about that.

And don’t go trying to propose increases in corporate taxes. If you do, the simulator responds with a finger-wagging note warning: “Raising corporate income tax would make the province less competitive compared to other provinces and countries, and would reduce long-term economic growth. Companies would decide to move to lower-tax jurisdictions, costing B.C. jobs and investment.”

This despite the fact that BC has among the lowest corporate tax rates in the country, and global accounting firm KMPG consistently finds BC to be one of the least expensive places to do business among major industrialized nations. Surely, we have room to move on this front.

Oddly, the one tax increase the simulator does not actively discourage is further increases to MSP premiums, the most regressive tax in the province.

Overall, the simulator is quick with warnings if you try to increase taxes to close the budget gap, but oddly silent when you try to lower spending. No bias there I guess.

(My thanks to both Shannon Daub and Iglika Ivanova for drawing some of these ridiculous features to my attention.)

We do indeed need a fulsome review of BC’s tax system, and the public certainly does deserve a chance to weigh in with our ideas for how to rethink the ways in which we raise and spend revenues. Sadly, neither this expert panel nor the online simulator will give is that chance. As I’ve said before, we need a full Fair Tax Commission, with an extensive public-engagement process that lets us genuinely deliberate on these matters.

Well then, I humbly submit the following Top 10 list of reasons for upper-income tax increases (in descending order).

#10: Ridiculous real estate.

Check out Vancouver’s 40 most expensive listings. West Vancouver currently has a property listed for just under $40 million. Indeed, the top six properties all list for over $20 million. The top property includes
a main house featuring “6 bedrooms, negative edge pool, hot tub, indoor and outdoor ponds, 3 waterfalls, billiards room, movie theatre, wine cellar, gym, massage room, and 15-car garage.” And then there is the “7,000 square feet guest house and 2,580 square feet combination maids’ quarters and office.”

#9: Canada’s top 100 CEOs pocketed an average $8.38 million in 2010.

That was a 27 percent increase over 2009, and 189 times more than Canadians earning the average wage. For more, see the CCPA report here.

#8: A “Super-Yacht” with a functioning volcano.

I kid you not. See here.

#7: A $2 million diamond handbag.

Really? Yup. See here

#6: Out-of-control weddings.

Weddings have always been big business. But clearly, some people need to be saved from themselves.

#5: Oh, just look at this.

LXRY Magazine (Luxury) is a Canadian online magazine focusing on comfort and extravagant living. Got 30,000 bucks for a pair of gold earrings or $200,000 for a car?

#4: The maximum RRSP deduction for 2011 is a whopping $22,450. 

That’s the ceiling for an annual contribution (for which people receive an extremely generous tax deduction — comes right off one’s taxable income) and does not include any unused room from previous years. Who the hell has $22K in extra income to tuck into this highly publicly-subsidized savings plan? A minimum-wage earner working full-time all year would have an entire annual income of only $19,798. The RRSP is one of the most expensive and inequitable social programs in Canada. The program costs the public treasury about $10 billion a year in foregone revenues. Yet, according to the CCPA’s Alternative Federal Budget, while more than two-thirds of those making over $100,000 a year contribute to RRSPs, less than a quarter of those making less than $50,000 find themselves able to contribute.

#3: The ultra rich are growing, according to Canada’s banks, so the 99% of us should follow the money. See here.

#2: Am I the only one who finds the “driving” section of almost any newspaper really annoying?

And the #1 reason for tax increases…

Weddings for dogs! Yes, it’s true.

“You can spend anything from $400 to $10,000,” says Doggie wedding planner Scott Rinehart. Doggie I Do’s, a Canadian company that coordinates “puptials” “for mutts in love,” offers basic wedding packages for 25 guests starting around $4000.

For more see here.

And you wanted proof that the free market rationally allocates scarce resources?

Clearly some people are under-taxed.  Couldn’t and shouldn’t some of that disposable income be put to better use?

Having a little of fun at the expense of the very rich is, well, fun. But on a more serious note, extensive research in a variety of fields (most comprehensively documented by epidemiologists Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett in their book, The Spirit Level) shows that out-of-control wealth and extreme inequality are actually bad for everyone — for our communities, our health, our democracy, our environment, and our personal wellbeing. Taxes are one of the ways we can reduce inequality, and create a more fair society for everyone. And that’s the real #1 reason we need tax increases for the wealthy.

A few year-end reading recommendations: Victoria Times-Colonist editorial writer Paul Willcocks wrote a terrific piece on the subject (you can find it here); and similarly, a group of UBC economists (including CCPA research associate David Green) authored a series on inequality for the Vancouver Sun (which you can find here).

Now we need to have a serious conversation about what to do to reduce the gap. Tackling inequality means focusing on a poverty action plan for those with low incomes, strengthening the economic security of those with middle incomes, and redistributing more of the income of the wealthy.

For lower-income individuals and families, we need our governments to adopt comprehensive poverty reduction plans (provincially and federally). The BC Poverty Reduction Coalition has been actively promoting the former, while nationally a similar call has been spearheaded by Make Poverty History, Canada Without Poverty, Citizens for Public Justice, and Campaign 2000. For how to enhance economic security across the low and middle-income spectrum, look no further than the CCPA’s Alternative Federal Budget.

But rising inequality hasn’t been driven by low incomes. Rather, as the Occupy movement rightly highlighted, the growing gap has been driven by the runaway-rich; the wealthiest 10% of households, and especially the wealthiest 1%, have been breaking away from the rest of us (as outlined in this CCPA report a year ago).

So if we are going to reduce inequality, we need to revisit our top tax brackets.

Here in British Columbia, thus far, Premier Clark seems resistant to doing so. But in a year-end interview with the Globe’s Gary Mason (available here), BC NDP leader Adrian Dix indicates that he is prepared to look at the tax rate of BC’s highest income earners:

“I don’t think there is a massive amount of room on the income tax side to get more money,” Mr. Dix said. “I haven’t really landed on the high-income stuff. But I don’t think there is any room under $100,000 or even $150,000 for that matter.”

“So, in the short term in B.C., the rich are not going to have to pay more,” I say.

“I haven’t said that,” Mr. Dix replied. “These are the issues we have to review.”

Currently, BC has five income tax brackets, and the top rate kicks in at about $100K of income. So it would seem from the above that Mr. Dix is open to considering an upward adjustment to that top rate and/or a new tax bracket that kicks in at $150K or higher. That’s good – much needed and long overdue.

Most British Columbians would be unaffected by such changes. Only about 4% of British Columbians make over $100K a year, and only a little more than 1% make over $150K. A new bracket at $250K of income would impact only about 0.5% of BC taxpayers. Yet such increases could yield some much needed income to the public treasury (the amount would depend on the new rates, but, for example, a new 20% tax rate on incomes over $150K could generate about $400 million in new revenues – enough to build about 2,000 new units of social housing per year, to give but one comparison).

As we noted in a CCPA report last summer, BC’s wealthiest 1% have been doing extremely well in recent years. Most would be willing to pay somewhat more in taxes, particularly if we could demonstrate that such revenues would help to reduce poverty and homelessness.

I’d argue that the BC government should not restrict itself to adjustments to the top rate alone. I think there is room to modestly increase the 3^rd and 4^th brackets as well (which kick in at incomes of about $73K and $84K respectively; again only impacting a small minority of taxpayers). As I noted in a blog post a couple years ago, I find my personal income tax rate to be remarkably low, given what we receive in public services, and the scope of unmet social and environmental needs.

If you too think that our upper tax brackets should be increased, may I recommend that you let our political leaders know. Too often our leaders are overly cautious, and presume we will not abide such increases. If we really want action on inequality, we need to tell them otherwise.

But that’s the U.S. right? Surely, our reality is different, eh? As the occupy movement comes to Canada in the coming week, we don’t really have reason to copy these American trouble-makers, do we?

Think again.

While inequality in Canada is not as great as in the U.S., in recent years it has been growing faster here (as noted in a recent report from the Conference Board of Canada).

As the CCPA documented in a report earlier this year on The Rise of Canada’s Richest 1%, “the 246,000 privileged few who rank among the country’s richest 1% took almost a third (32%) of all growth in incomes between 1997 and 2007.”

And here in British Columbia, the richest 1% have been doing remarkably well.

Last June, the CCPA-BC released a report on the erosion of tax fairness in BC. We found that BC’s personal tax system (including income tax, sales taxes, property taxes, carbon taxes and MSP premiums) has become out-and-out regressive –– amazingly, the richest 1% of BC households pay a lower overall tax rate than others. Meaning, in today’s BC, as a share of one’s income, the richer you are the lower your overall tax rate.

In fact, provincial income tax cuts introduced since 2001 delivered, on average, a whopping $41,000 to the top 1% of BC households.

How could the value of ten years of tax cuts be so great for the richest 1%? The answer: tax cuts are worth so much because the richest 1% have been making out so fantastically well. As of 2010, the average income of the richest 1% of BC households had reached a staggering $820,000 (that’s in one year!).

And the top 1% saw huge gains over ten years. Back in 2000, their average household income was $602,000. So in ten years, their income rose by a fantastic 36% (double the inflation rate of 18% during that time). With the market producing so much gains for the wealthiest among us, why on earth did the government feel compelled to pile on with tax cuts for those who need it least?

Quite a contrast with the rest of us: real median incomes were flat during that period.

If we are serious about addressing rising inequality, we need to increase taxes on the wealthiest British Columbians. BC’s upper income tax brackets need to be increased, and we should bring in a new high income tax bracket or two (hey, if even Warren Buffet can advocate for that in the US, we can and should be pursuing it here). Longer term, we need a Fair Tax Commission – a chance to have a full public conversation about how much money we need to pay for what we want to provide collectively, and how to raise that money in a fair and equitable manner.

The following are just a few of the issues that hit the convention floor.

The RCMP and public private partnerships

There was a lot of coverage in the media about the breakdown in negotiations over a new RCMP contract between British Columbia and the federal government. A side bar issue that got no coverage dealt with the new RCMP Division Headquarters in Surrey.

Solicitor General Shirley Bond complained to a UBCM panel about the province’s inability to control rising RCMP costs. The example she gave was the RCMP’s new Division E headquarters that saw costs balloon from $300 million to $1 billion.

However, it turns out that the new headquarters is a federal public private partnerships and that so far the province’s privatization agency, Partnerships BC, has billed $2.5 million in consulting fees on the project. Remember when the government argued that P3s offered fixed costs and price stability?

The Municipal Auditor General

Mayors and councilors were not happy about the province’s decision to impose a Municipal Auditor General on them. Councilors argued from the convention floor that they were already forbidden by law to run a deficit and had many of their major projects subject to referendum.

However, the province backed down on most of the issues promising to pay for the new office (but not for the cost of audits) as well as swearing that new MAG would not have the power to second guess local policies, including tax policy.

The big issue that still remains is governance. The UBCM wants the same model the province enjoys in its relationship with its own AGM. That would mean an MAG would report to an accounting board made up of local government representatives. No dice Communities Minister Ida Chong told the convention. Apparently local governments will make up only a minority of the board. The business community has been promised its own chair at the table.

The business community (primarily the Canadian Federation of Independent Business) is on a full-court press to see business property taxes cut with the cost being shifted to homeowners. Of course business, unlike homeowners, can write off their property taxes against federal and provincial taxes.

Government downloading and rural areas

Every UBCM convention holds individual forums for different sized communities. My favorite is always the Electoral Area Directors’ forum made up of mainly people representing spread out rural areas. While diplomacy is the order of the day when big communities talk to the provincial government, with Area Directors you get a lot more down-to-earth candor.

Over the years Area directors have had a continuing complaint about downloading of costs. This year the complaint was over diking policy. As a Central Kootenay Director told the provincial officials at the forum, “One of the reasons you are downloading is that you lack resources. If you can’t handle it, we sure can’t.” The chair of the presentation on diking sent the provincial officials away with this message:

We don’t have the expertise, equipment or money. Flood mitigation needs more funding. Send the message back.

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)

Over the years residents, particularly in urban areas, have become used to a growing level of recycling. Blue boxes take away our newspapers, cans and plastics. For many of us there will soon be recycling of kitchen scraps.

It turns out there is some risk of things going the other direction. The Area Directors heard a presentation on Extended Producer Responsibility. Under this program producers and consumers or products will have responsibility for them. It sounds attractive but what will it actually mean?

A Director from the Sunshine Coast told the panel they were planning to extend their blue box program and asked for advice considering the EPR policy. An industry spokesman advised the Director that they couldn’t give practical advice but that it would be “prudent to wait.”  An industry spokesman reported that some governments were putting a pause on such projects. “Remain nimble” she advised.

It turns out we may all have to be more nimble if we have to start taking our newspapers to depots rather than having them picked up in blue boxes.

Wages for public employees

It appears Christy Clark’s government is determined to make public employees pay for the government’s ineptitude on the HST. In a panel on the economy Finance Minister Kevin Falcon told the audience:

With respect to the wage mandate for the whole public service at net zero for two years – that tough mandate is likely to continue.

Public sector wages have already fallen due to inflation and the two year wage freeze. The Finance Minister appears determined to push them down further. Meanwhile, at least for now, wages in the private sector are going up.

Ferries

At the forum on the economy an Island Trust Trustee told the panel of Ministers:

Ferry fares are killing our communities. We are losing jobs because of the ferry fares.  If government isn’t willing to put money into ferry infrastructure we are going to continue to lose jobs.

Transportation Minister Blair Lekstrum said they were cutting 400 sailings but that it would not likely affect fares. Finance Minister Falcon suggested fares really didn’t make much difference because when they cut fares temporarily during the recession, ridership didn’t go up. The Island Trustee disagreed.

Open government

I went to one of the 7:30 am “clinics” on Thursday morning on “open government.” I had hoped it might deal with the government’s poor record on access to information but instead it dealt with the governments new web sites.

It wasn’t a total loss though. The government’s data website that now contains more than 2,400 data sets looks pretty interesting. And the open information site that publishes the government’s FOI releases is certainly worth reading on a rainy Sunday afternoon. Too bad their policy of releasing the information only 72 hours after it goes to the FOI requestor will probably discourage media from using FOI.

Workshop on market housing

Thursday afternoon there was a workshop on market housing that was much more interesting than last year’s all day workshop. Last year was mainly taken up by how little the province could or would do. This year instead focused on how much was actually being done in communities like Vernon, Langford and Surrey.

 There were dozens of other policy issues addressed in the week long convention. Paul Willcocks has an interesting column on the debate about smart meters here. It is remarkable just how much information flows in a meeting like this.

The Minster’s presentation focused on highlighting the cost of the move back to PST/GST, providing some large numbers for the media headlines, instead of looking at the big picture.

In case you missed the media coverage, the provincial coffers are projected to suffer a loss of $2.8 billion over the next 3 years, relative to the estimates presented in February’s Budget 2011. The Ministry estimates that $2.3 billion of the loss is brought about by the HST defeat and the move back to the PST/GST system.

The Minister argued the impact of the HST defeat is manageable, but warned that:

“We’re going to be very tough on operating expenditures and people need to understand it is going to be a government that is going to be run very, very tightly from a fiscal point of view.”

However, closer look at the numbers reveal that the provincial financial situation is not nearly as dire as it may seem. And that returning to PST/GST is not all that costly, when compared with how much it would have cost to keep the “fixed” HST.

Firstly, comparing the costs of repealing the HST to the February budget estimates is misleading. Budget 2011 numbers did not include the cost of the last minute HST “fix” that Premier Clark announced this summer. Keeping the HST would have involved a significant budget loss relative to the numbers announced in February, as Seth Klein pointed out here. This is why the impact of reverting to PST/GST should be compared to the impact of keeping the “fixed” HST.

The cost of the one time rebates of $175 per child regardless of family income and for low- and modest- income seniors were estimated at $200 million. The government’s news release announced that these checks would go out before the end of the year, so they should be considered as expenses in 2011/12.

In addition, the HST was slated to be reduced to 11% in July 2012, which would have cost the government around $638 million in 2012/13 — 3/4 of the annual cost of a 1 percentage point reduction (estimated at $850 million). In 2013/14 the government would have given up $850 million. And this isn’t even considering that in July 2014, the tax was going to be reduced to 10%, giving up a total of $1.7 billion in revenues every year. At that rate, the government’s actually going to be collecting more revenue with the PST/GST than otherwise.

Some of these extra costs would have been offset by the increase in the corporate income tax to 12% (from the current 10%) in January 2012 and by postponing the small business tax cut slated for April 2012. These would have generated an additional $100 mil  in 2011/12 (1/4 of the annual revenue gain, estimated at $400 mil) and just over $400 million each in 2012/13 and 2013/14.

Thus, the real comparison of the costs of repealing the HST looks more like this:

My analysis shows that the provincial treasury would have faced a shortfall of $800 million even if the HST had survived the referendum. The real net costs of reverting to PST/GST are $1.5 billion, not $2.3 billion.

Of course, using the bigger number is more effective if one were looking to lay the blame for provincial fiscal challenges onto the referendum results.

Now, let’s turn to the total provincial fiscal position. Many analysts/commentators seem to have forgotten that the fiscal plan features unusually large contingencies and forecast allowances over the next 3 years. These total $2.5 billion over the 3 years and thus entirely cover the costs of the HST reversal.

If the HST defeat is not an unexpected event worth dipping into the contingency funds for, I don’t know what is.

As for the forecast allowance, the government has already built a lot of prudence into the budget projections by using economic growth forecasts that are considerably lower than the private sector consensus forecast (2% vs 2.8% growth for 2011 and 2.3% vs 2.8% growth in 2012).

In other words, the BC government has a real fiscal gap of only about $300 million over 3 years relative to Budget 2011, not $2.8 billion. This is a lot more manageable and hardly requires the kind of tight-fisted approach advocated by Minister Falcon.

Some of the media commentary around the fiscal update, such as Vaughn Palmer’s piece in the Sun are suggesting that the BC government is using the current fiscal challenges as an opportunity to punish British Columbians for exercising their rights in the HST referendum. This would be a great mistake. Not only would it go against our country’s respect for democracy, but it would also put a drag on the already fragile recovery (latest job numbers released today show BC is shedding jobs, full-time jobs in particular).

Was the vote was split along income lines?

Here’s what I found when I plotted the referendum results (% voting to scrap the HST) by average after-tax income in the electoral district from BC Stats. The latest income data by electoral district is somewhat dated – it’s based on the 2006 Census – but the results are pretty clear. The poorer the electoral district, the higher the voters’ opposition to HST. And vice versa, in richer electoral districts more people voted to keep the HST.

I doubt this is a coincidence. Income disparities have grown over the last decade and as our incomes diverge, so do the opportunities we have and our experiences. Social cohesion is threatened when it becomes harder and harder to think of ourselves as British Columbians, voting for the benefit of our province, and start identifying more closely with a particular social class.

A recent article by Pete McMartin in the Vancouver Sun illustrates these diverging experiences all too well:

… the efficiencies the HST promises are real…But I also think that the retention of the HST is a question of class, that business people and economists and the well-salaried members of the media can afford to view the HST as a concept rather than a real financial burden.

Is it going to stop a family earning six figures from eating out more often? No. Will that family quail at repairing a leaky roof, and the added thousands an HST will add to that repair? Again, no. That well-off family cannot only afford the more immediate costs of a leaky roof, it can afford to entertain the long-range promises the pro-HST position makes -that down the road, the efficiencies the HST provide will deliver more jobs to the economy and lower costs to the consumer.

Call me a skeptic: That promise I find hard to take on faith, given our record of growing income disparities in this country. As for those future benefits, even the independent panel’s review on the HST characterized its benefits as “modest”.

What do you make of the referendum results?

The best part about having the results is that now we can move on from the narrow issue of what type of sales tax is better and focus our energies on some of the bigger issues affecting British Columbia.

Since the HST was first announced in the summer of 2009, it has dominated the policy debates in BC despite the fact that either way, the tax was going to have only marginal effects on the economy.

Yes, the HST is slightly more economically efficient than the PST. But the difference has been vastly exaggerated by HST proponents, who also refused to acknowledge that the tax is unfair to modest and middle-income families.

This is hardly surprising to readers of this blog who may recall me making this point before:

The HST is certainly an improvement on the PST from an economic efficiency point, but it’s a relatively small improvement. I am convinced that the economic benefits touted by the BC government and over exaggerated and the significant job growth, in particular, will not materialize.

The reason why HST only has a marginal impact is that taxes play only a marginal role in investment decisions. The main determinant of investment is expectations for future sales, driven in part by the general economic environment. Proximity to markets, the availability of appropriate infrastructure, access to cheap energy, access to a skilled labour force, and political stability are all much more important considerations when a firm is choosing where to set up shop.

The independent panel report, commissioned by the BC government, estimated that the actual economic impact we can expect from HST falls far short of the “giant leap” touted by U of Calgary’s Prof. Jack Mintz. For example, while Prof Mintz estimated 113,000 new jobs and 8% increase in capital investment by 2020, the independent panel found that we could realistically expect about 24,400 more jobs and 4% increase in business investment over the same period.

While I personally would have preferred to keep a reformed version of the HST, I think it’s counterproductive to fret over marginal efficiency differences after the people have spoken.

I’m also glad to see a return to somewhat improved tax fairness. We have witnessed a very large increase in income inequality in BC over the past 20 years, and we need to be very careful not to pursue policies that will make this problem worse — like the HST.

Recent research we’ve done at the CCPA shows that the HST is only one piece of an inequitable provincial tax system, a system in which the richest 20% of British Columbians pay a lower overall/total effective tax rate than the rest of us. Much more needs to be done to make sure everyone contributes a fair share to fund the the services and infrastructure BC needs in.

Now that the HST debate is over, it would be great to see some of the energy and focus many academics, business and community leaders dedicated to debating the HST be redirected to designing and debating solution to the real challenges facing BC.

Our unemployment rate remains high and slightly above the Canadian average at 7.3%. The economic outlook has worsened considerably over the last 6 months, with or without HST. There’s a serious risk of our main trade partner, the US, going into a second recession, which may push us back into a recession as well. Canadian corporations are not investing, even in the HST provinces. That’s because it’s not about taxes!

In the meantime, BC hasn’t had a budget and significant policy changes since Feb 2010. The Feb 2011 budget, tabled in the midst of a party leadership race, was prepared as a “placeholder” budget, padded with unusually large contingencies and forecast allowances to leave the new Premier room to implement their own policy priorities. Premier Clark has not tabled a budget yet, deferring the decision until after the HST referendum.

Now we know what we’re dealing with, I look forward to debating Premier Clark’s policy priorities for moving forward.

British Columbia families will remain vulnerable, burdened with unprecedented levels of household debt — 160% of income — the highest in Canada. More and more people are retiring with debt. Our housing market is weakening and bank economists are expecting a “correction” (aka, decline). Unemployment rate remains high, and is projected to stay over 7% for the next few years. Wages for those who are employed are barely keeping up with inflation.

The reality is that without a robust labour market recovery and real increases in household incomes, consumer spending will no longer be able to drive the type of strong economic growth BC experienced in the mid-2000s.

We’re still struggling with low business investment after years of corporate tax cuts that were supposed to stimulate investment and productivity. It’s not for lack of money: private non-financial corporations held $471 billion of cash in the first quarter of 2011. It’s also not for lack of competitiveness, or these corporations would have invested abroad instead of keeping the cash.

The problems that climate change poses continue to grow. We need an economic strategy what would invest in people and take bold steps to support a greener economy for our province.

On top of these, persistent poverty and rising income inequality threaten our economic wellbeing. We spend too much paying for the consequences of poverty instead of addressing the root causes of the problem. We are not fully using the skills and productive potential of those in poverty or those whose lower incomes limit the kind of opportunities available to them. Even the Conference Board of Canada has acknowledged that not just poverty but income inequality “can diminish economic growth and undermines social cohesion.

These are the types of issues that should be at the center of the economic debate in BC, not the best type of sales tax.

Charlie Smith had a good article in the Georgia Straight outlining reasons why a municipal AG would be a good idea. Some people, in some municipalities have had problems with transparency.  And while the Province does have an “Inspector of Municipalities” this position is useless when someone has an actual problem with local government actions.

But the issue is trickier than it looks.  Are we really talking about a mechanism to increase transparency and accountability in local governments? Or are we talking about a mechanism to allow the province and corporations to impose their agenda on local governments?

Under the Canadian Constitution the Province has the power to make laws that govern local governments. But the Community Charter, the provincial law that governs municipalities, has some pretty explicit language on the relationship between municipalities and the Province.

Clause 1 of the Community Charter says, “Municipalities and their councils are recognized as an order of government within their jurisdiction that…is democratically elected, autonomous, responsible and accountable”.  Clause 2 explicitly calls for consultation on local government legislation.

Christy Clark’s unilateral announcement that she would be imposing a local Auditor General was neither respectful of municipalities as an “order of government” nor did it involve any consultation.

The Union of BC Municipalities is usually pretty cautious when it comes to criticizing the provincial government. Their response to the AG plan goes further than they are usually willing to go.  The UBCM pointed out they had offered to participate in a joint Provincial/UBCM policy development process related to the MAG. but that “To date the Province has not agreed to such a joint process.”

The UBCM asked just what problem the government was trying to solve with the proposal.  They asked if it was tied into other commitments made by the Premier on municipal tax reform.

Following a meeting with the Minister, the UBCM reported:

The Ministry noted that AGs are usually precluded from a review of policy decisions of elected officials; no assurances were given that the design of a BC MAG would ensure this; the Minister indicated the MAG would initially be responsible for value for money auditing and best practices, but that further roles, including a municipal tax review, if suggested by the MAG, might be considered

The Provincial Auditor General is forbidden to comment on the policy decisions of the Province. It also reports to the legislature and gives the government copies in advance. There are no guarantees any of these protections would be offered to local governments.

It is not surprising that the Minister’s response makes local governments twitchy.  They have seen what happens when the province imposes an outside auditor who has the power to second guess their policy decisions. That is what happened to the Vancouver Board of Education when the Province sent in its Comptroller to review the Board’s budget. The Board had been critical of the Province and the Comptroller’s report was a hatchet job.

Municipalities are worried they could face the same thing especially since the Province has said this might include a municipal tax review. Christy Clark promised a municipal auditor general when she was running for Liberal leader. It was an odd promise and not one likely to resonate with the average voter. Who then was the audience she was addressing with the promise? 

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business and other business organizations have been pushing for a cut in local business taxes and all of this looks like part of the same agenda.

It is enough to make municipalities, justifiably, very, very nervous.

Hochstein is president of the Independent Contractors and Business Association of BC – representing non union construction corporations. He is the public face of the hard right in British Columbia and has a long history attacking unions. He opposed raising the minimum wage and supports, through the HST, shifting taxes off corporations and on to working people.

While the views in his op-ed come as no surprise it is worth having a look at their validity and perhaps speculating on the makeup of the growing chorus supporting his views.

Hochstein complains that local government taxes have been rising faster than the cost of living. He is not the first to make this complaint. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business makes this complaint so regularly that last May the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM) was finally moved to respond.

The UBCM acknowledged that local taxes had gone up faster than the Consumer Price Index. They then showed the reasons why. The fastest areas of growth were protective services, parks and recreation. These are areas where the public has demanded more services from local governments. Whether you agree with it or not, the demand from the public for more police on the streets is almost unlimited. As a percentage of total costs, general government expenditures – the cost of running local governments – has actually declined.

 Downloading of costs from the federal and provincial governments to municipalities had also raised the cost of delivering local services. New environmental mandates have been a big part of this. As well in many provinces municipalities get more in provincial grants than BC municipalities do.

One other thing is worth noting here. Based on the most recent Stats Can figures available, local taxation in BC is significantly lower than the national average.

Hochstein’s next complaint is twofold. First, public workers are paid better than private sector work, and second, municipal wages went up during the recession.

Both accusations are correct. How does this come to be? One of the most important reasons why average wages are higher in the public sector is that there is less discrimination in wages.

CLC Economist Andrew Jackson has published some excellent work on this.  He quotes one report saying:

While now somewhat dated, the best independent Canadian empirical studies show that a modest public sector pay advantage is mainly the product of higher pay for women in lower paid occupations, offset by lower pay for mainly male workers in managerial jobs.

He cites another study finding:

Based on the 2006 census data, this study shows that visible minorities and Whites receive similar pay for similar jobs in the public sector. By contrast, in the private sector visible minority men earn significantly less than observationally comparable Whites.

Discrimination against women and minorities does not appear to rank highly in Hochstein’s priorities.

And yes, because of long term contracts signed prior to the Olympics, wages for government workers did go up faster than inflation during the recession. But over the last ten years they have gone up more slowly than those for unionized private sector workers.

Now Hochstein is no fool. He is aware of all these things yet he continues to make arguments that do not stand up to scrutiny.

In this he is not alone. These are the same arguments made by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Fraser Institute and the many Fraser Institute clones such as the Frontier Centre.

And these are exactly the same arguments we are hearing by the Tea Party Republicans in the United States and the billionaires who back them. Their goal is not just the reduction of taxes; it is the undermining of progressive forces that oppose their view of the world. For them attacking unions is not just about driving wages down, though that is important to them, it is about undermining one of the only forces left today pushing a progressive agenda.

Make no mistake, Philip Hochstein and the people like him look admiringly to Governor Scott Walker and his agenda for Wisconsin. Their policy agenda is low wages and high taxes for workers and a monopoly on power for corporations.

Our BC analysis draws on Statistics Canada’s Social Policy Simulation Database and Model to look at total BC taxes and key subcategories of personal taxes (income tax, commodity tax, property tax, MSP premiums) as a share of total household income, in 2000 and 2010. Results were broken down into deciles, and because so much of the real action is in the top decile it was further broken down into top 1%, next 4% and next 5%.

Unsurprisingly, total BC taxes as a share of income declined for every income group. This has undermined funding for public services, but has also led to a shift in who pays how much. The average tax cut was 2.3% of income, though there were larger gains as income increased. Tax reductions were only worth about 1% of income for the lower-middle deciles, increase to 1.8% of income for the upper-middle, then rise to 3.6% for the top 10%. However, the top 1% got tax cuts worth 5.1% of their income. In dollar terms, that is a gain of $41,000 for the top 1%, while those in the bottom deciles average a tax cut of a couple hundred bucks.

By contrast, in 2000 BC had a relatively flat tax system, with a modest bump in tax rate for the top 1%. By 2010, the tax system as a whole had shifted to become regressive. Income tax cuts, unsurprisingly, were the principal driver of lower taxes. The value of income tax cuts averaged about 0.2% of income for the bottom decile, rising to 5.2% for the top 1%. The provincial income tax system continues to be progressive, but has flattened out over the course of the decade.

Gains from income tax cuts were somewhat offset by increases in MSP premiums for middle-income groups, as much as half of a percent of income. But as “head tax” MSP premiums inevitably shrink as a share of income as income rises. So much so that for the top 1% the difference between 2000 and 2010 is negligible (and rounds to zero). For the bottom two deciles, exemptions based on income mean that the rate is effectively zero in both years; changes to increase the threshold meant reduced payments to a very small share of income (0.1%) for D2.

Bottom line: we need a fair tax system, and recommend a Fair Tax Commission that would engage a conversation with British Columbians about what public services we need, and how to pay for them fairly. A good tax system must also compensate for the tremendous inequality that arises in market incomes, which reiterates the need for progressive income taxes at a time when CEO, bankers and lawyers are making huge gains while middle class households are getting squeezed.

We were pleased to see a positive response from the Premier, who apparently shares our concern about the declining middle class. Alas, her Finance Minister, Kevin Falcon, simply dismissed the study without reading it. He then comments: “They want to go back to a system — tax the rich. They’re talking about the professionals that we’re trying to attract to B.C., the doctors and the nurses. We want them to come to B.C. and we want them to stay. We don’t want to chase them out with a tax system.”

Just to put that comment in perspective, the cut-off for making the top 1% in 2010 was $358,614 with an average income in that group of $825,000. We are not talking middle-class professionals here, though he’s right about the “tax the rich” part. Given what a great place BC is to live I don’t think a tax system that makes the wealthy pay a fair share is too much to ask.

A final note: we have received some criticism from economists that we include tax credits from GST/HST and carbon tax systems as income, rather than deducting them from taxes paid. We discuss this issue in the paper — technically, they are tax benefits, paid out the year after the tax year filed (you actually get a cheque or direct deposit) and by accounting convention they are considered transfer income in the SPSD/M. In a footnote we do some alt calculations that show the treating them as deductions from taxes lowers the bottom decile rate but still does not change the fundamental conclusion about regressivity. In any event, the key points from the analysis are what is happening at the top, not the bottom, as there are other things going in the bottom decile (we also discuss this if you want to get geeky about it).

True, different types of taxes affect people differently and the fairness of different tax policies is a valid concern. But don’t tell me we are going to pay less overall by instituting one tax as opposed another. It is a silly reason to support of the HST in the same way that it was a silly reason to support the ‘revenue-negative’ carbon tax.

In any case, by almost any sensible measure we need more, not less public investment. So let’s not try to figure out how to pay less; we need to think about the most efficient and equitable ways to pay more.

Which brings me to the HST vs PST quandary we currently face. There is no question that the manner in which the HST was introduced was duplicitous, and that there is little reason to trust the government’s latest plan to to make it more equitable between households and business in the future. But those are reasons for voting for a change in government, not to restore the PST.

The fact is, despite all the good arguments of my old school mate David Schreck, the PST is an inefficient tax. There is the obvious duplication of tax collection and payment with the our very own PST. And there is the more subtle, but still significant problem of charging sales tax on goods whose prices already  include sales tax paid on the B.C. materials they use — an economically distorting tax on tax.

There is as well the impact of the narrower tax base of the PST as compared to the HST. Whatever is taxed has to be taxed a lot more to make up for everything that isn’t taxed, without any consistent reasoning or principle determining why some things we consume should be taxed and others should not. I like to go out to eat, but I can’t understand why government should treat that more favourably than buying tools or clothes.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m no great lover of the HST. If someone wants to implement higher energy prices, natural resource  royalties, congestion charges, solid waste fees– a serious effort to capture resource rents and to tax environmental and social costs — I am all for it. There are better alternatives. But going back to the PST is not one of them.

So I can’t see voting ‘yes’ (meaning ‘no’) in the upcoming referendum. And that is not because of the silly ‘lower tax’ argument being made in defence of the HST. It is because the HST is better than what we are being asked to go back to.

Almost everything that is vital to a healthy community, from life expectancy to levels of depression to crime rates, is affected by inequality. This is true in both rich and poor countries.  (The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone, by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett).

Social factors begin to affect us at conception, so that life in the womb and the perinatal period can affect well-being later on.  Even if exposed to stress in the womb, however:

A nurturing environment after birth can provide the child with enormous potential to change their course of development. This is known as “developmental plasticity,” which means that the brain can adapt and change as the child grows with a positive environment.

The important message here is in how we as a community support pregnant women. Stressful lives are most often linked with socioeconomic disadvantage. This research shows we should be targeting these women with support programs to ensure the stress does not negatively affect the unborn child.  (Repeated Stress in Pregnancy Linked to Children’s Behavior)

Poverty can even cause brain damage. Researchers discovered that U.S. children from “low socioeconomic environments” displayed a response in their pre-frontal cortex that was similar “to the response of people who have had a portion of their frontal lobe destroyed by a stroke” (Poor Children’s Brain Activity Resembles That Of Stroke Victims, EEG Shows).

The damage may result from conditions such as poor nutrition, lack of time with over-worked and over-stressed parents, or fewer opportunities for intellectual stimulation – all of which may affect the quality of care that a child receives.  This does NOT mean that all poor children are so afflicted, but the average poor child is more likely to suffer.

Every dollar invested in the young not only saves lives and prevents illness, but it will also save at least $7 dollars in future social costs. For instance, lead poisoning, ADHD, and autism resulting from toxic chemicals and pollution in the United States cost $77 billion annually. Globally, almost 350,000 women die each year in childbirth – most of whom could be saved for the cost of just six fighter jets. Even worse: over 22,000 children under the age of 5 die every day from hunger and preventable diseases – almost 9 million every year. This year’s U.S. military budget is around $800 billion, and the world spends twice that on war. The simplest change would be to redirect wasteful military spending to end the worst elements of global poverty.

In 2009, the combined net worth of the world’s 1,011 billionaires increased to $3.6 trillion, up $1.2 trillion in just one year. This NEW wealth alone could end global poverty.

Perhaps the most important point is that none of these social, economic, and environmental problems are necessary. All scarcities, as Murray Bookchin pointed out over 40 years ago, are artificial. We possess the knowledge and the wealth to eliminate the worst of these afflictions. Why aren’t we doing so?

There are elements of the latest reform package I like (which I’ll get to below), but overall the government’s proposed “bold fix” is a classic case of politics trumping good policy.

What’s my beef with the “fix”?

In promising to lower the HST by two percentage points (from 10% to 12% over the next three years), and in sending families cheques this year of $175 per child under 18 regardless of household income, the government is proposing to spend a great deal of money on people who don’t need it.

True, a two percentage point reduction in the HST will benefit everyone, but the biggest dollar savings would go to the wealthiest households (as they spend the most on goods and services). Likewise, wealthy families with children under 18 will get cheques this year that they will hardly notice in their household budgets (even though, collectively, these cheques will cost the public treasury a lot), while low and modest income people without children get nothing. This is not a wise use of public funds –– it makes much more sense to target money to the individuals and households who really need the help. (Ironically, this is what the government is proposing to do for seniors –– offering additional rebates only to low and modest income seniors –– but for political reasons they’ve chosen a different approach for everyone else.)

The government is proposing to partially pay for this change by increasing the corporate income tax from 10% to 12% (meaning, returning the corporate tax rate to its 2008 level). Now I’m all for that. But Finance Minister Kevin Falcon has made a point of emphasizing he sees this change as “temporary.”

But here’s the bigger problem:  Cutting the HST by two percentage points is very expensive –– about $1.7 billion in lost revenue per year once fully implemented. In contrast, increasing the corporate income tax rate to 12% will only recoup about $400 million. That would leave a hole in the budget of about $1.3 billion. So this “fix” would mean the HST is no longer revenue neutral, but revenue negative, and would have to be paid for in either increased debt or (more likely) cuts to public services and programs.  (The government is also proposing to delay further reductions in the small business tax rate, which would save about another $300 million, but again, the Minister has emphasized that this delay is temporary.)

In short, Premier Clark has more or less done the same thing Premier Campbell tried just before announcing his resignation; namely, seeking to win the public over with a promise of more tax cuts, the budget consequences (and money for public services) be damned.

A much better (and cheaper) fix, as I recently wrote here, would have been to keep the HST, expand the low-income HST credit, and fully pay for this expansion with increases in corporate income taxes. But again, what we really need is a full Fair Tax Commission, in which we deliberate over the role of a value-added sales tax within the overall tax system (which would serve us so much better than a referendum on such a narrow question).

That said, embedded in the government’s proposed “fix” are some positive developments that need to be recognized.

The campaigners against the HST should take some satisfaction from the fact that they made the government say “uncle”. The government was forced to admit that the HST shifted too much onto consumers and too much off corporations.

More importantly, the government has now acknowledged that we can increase corporate income taxes and the sky will not fall. It is no small irony that when Adrian Dix proposed during the NDP leadership race that corporate income taxes be returned to their 2008 level, he was accused by government representatives and media pundits of being a “class warrior”. Yet now Christy Clark has proposed doing just that (and even gone a step further with a proposed delay to planned reductions in the small business tax rate).

And another rather delicious irony: those corporate income taxes reductions since 2008 were part of the carbon tax’s revenue recycling regime. Meaning, if the government did actually increase the corporate income tax, they would have to amend their carbon tax legislation, which requires that the tax be revenue neutral. Again, I’m all for that. The CCPA has long said that making the carbon tax revenue neutral (and giving big tax cuts to business) made little sense, and that the carbon tax income should be partially used to fund other climate initiatives. So nice to know the new Premier is now ready to break with revenue neutrality there.

Layton and Ignatieff more or less abandoned the issue and did not press Harper about the inefficiency of these cuts. The week before the debate both the Globe and Mail and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives studies showed that corporations mostly hoard the money they save from the tax cuts and don’t use it to reinvest in the economy or create new jobs, the supposed reason for the cuts.

Munir Sheikh, former head of Statistics Canada and of tax policy at Finance Canada, showed this week that the real winner of the Canadian corporate tax cuts is the U.S. Tax cuts here give corporations bigger profits and because the US corporate tax rate is about twice as high as ours, US corporations in Canada then just pay more American tax on their Canadian profits. This transfer from the Canadian to the US treasuries amounts to between $4 and $6 billion a year.

Harper talks economic conservatism, but the record doesn’t show it, either in deficit reduction or spending actions. When the Conservatives took office they inherited a $13 billion surplus. Cutting the GST by two points turned this into an almost $6 billion deficit by 2008. Now the deficit is over $55 billion.

A deficit isn’t always a bad thing, particularly when a country goes through an economic downturn as we did. But cutting government income during a recession is asking for trouble and that is what we have. Both the IMF and the Parliamentary Budget Office have warned that Canada now has a structural deficit. This means that without big revenue increases the deficit becomes permanent. Since Harper is promising a balanced budget by 2014 cutting programs is about the only solution for him.

Harper is also a big spender and is committed to some expensive projects in the future, including something on the order of $35 billion for new fighter jets and $9 billion for prisons. It’s the kind of economic conservatism typical of the Bush presidency, one that cut taxes at the same time it spent lavishly on the military. But at least with Bush the money was spent in the country, with the F-35 spending the money will mostly go to the U.S. That’s economic stimulus, but not for Canada.

This post was published in The Province today.