Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

BC Budget


  • Please log in to reply
229 replies to this topic

#1 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,797 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 19 February 2013 - 04:17 PM

The budget document : http://www.bcbudget....Fiscal_Plan.pdf

http://www.vancouver...6433/story.html

VICTORIA -- Premier Christy Clark's BC Liberal government on Tuesday fulfilled its promise of returning to a balanced budget by borrowing tax increases proposed by NDP leader Adrian Dix, booking an expected $800 million windfall from the sale of government assets and properties, and by imposing extraordinary spending controls across the entire government.


The government's budget included a one per cent increase to the province's corporate income tax starting April 1, bringing the rate to 11 per cent. It also included a temporary increase in personal income taxes for people making more than $150,000 per year. Dix has speculated both would measures be part of a fully-costed NDP election platform -- due for release in the coming weeks - although his proposal would have increased corporate taxes by an extra one per cent.


Coming 12 weeks before the May election, the budget also includes a four per cent increase to MSP premiums - bringing the rate to $138.50 for families of three or more -- and a $2 per carton increase to the tax on cigarettes.


On the spending side, the BC Liberal budget cuts increases in government spending in the coming year to under one per cent - a level below the expected growth in the province's GDP and comparable to dramatic restraints the Liberals employed during their first few years in office.

After combing all these measures with plans in the coming year to sell $475 million in surplus government assets - as well as a combined windfall of about $330 million expected from the completion of the sale of Little Mountain and the sale of the Vancouver Liquor Distribution Branch warehouse -- government says it will end the year with a $197 million surplus.


"Today I am presenting what we promised to the people of British Columbia, and what they have worked hard to achieve - a balance budget," Finance Minister Mike de Jong told the legislature as he introduced the province's first balanced budget in five years.

"We will not spend money we don't have," he continued. "We will not have a legacy of needless debt."


John Winter, president of the BC Chamber of Commerce, applauded the government on its return to balance.


"Good on them for living up to the commitment to balance the budget, it's hard to do but I think it's realistic," he said.

Winter's only criticism was that the government did nothing to soften the blow to business that will come with a return to the PST.


Greg D'Avignon, president of the Business Council of British Columbia, agreed. He said he thinks the government's projections are credible, but raised pointed concerns about the return to the PST and other increasing costs.


"There's a layering on of costs of doing business here in British Columbia and we are uncompetitive," he said, taking an uncharacteristic warning shot at the business friendly BC Liberal government.


"We were one of the most competitive jurisdictions in North America and we're going to become one of the most uncompetitive. That has an impact on job creation, on economic growth."


Union leaders were highly critical of Tuesday's budget, questioning a decision to balance the book months before the May election on the back of planned asset sales.


"This is not a balance budget," said Jim Sinclair of the B.C. Federation of Labour. "We're going to fire sale so he can balance the budget," he added.


Sinclair also blasted the government on plans to shrink the public service by about 1,200 spaces over two years.


"This budget kills 1,200 jobs in British Columbia that are good paying jobs that support communities in healthcare and education and forestry," he said, in comments that were echoed by British Columbia Government and Service and Employees' Union president Darryl Walker.


"They call it attrition but it's still warm bodies that are going to be in cold seats," said Walker.


"People are going to be doubling up; they're going to be doing twice as much work. There's fear that people are going to be put in positions of danger."


Spending controls in Tuesday's budget are spread throughout government, but are felt most prominently in healthcare, where projected increases are dropping to 2.6 per cent from a previous annual average of 4.4 per cent. Between 2005 and 2008, health spending grew by about seven per cent per year.


Tuesday's projections mean the health sector will see an increase for the coming year that is $234 million less than what government projected at this time last year.

Government says it can accomplish this without sacrificing the quality of health care because of new rules for pricing on generic drugs, possible measures to reduce the cost of labs and by negotiating a hold-the-line contract with the province's doctors.

British Columbia Nurses' Union president Debra McPherson was not convinced.


"We're quite concerned about this budget," she said.


"On the overall funding increase, we see the health authorities getting a 2.3 per cent lift. In last year's forecast they were told they'd be getting 3.6. We don't think that's going to cover inflation and population growth."


Hospital Employees' Union secretary-business manager Bonnie Pearson was critical of the scaled-back increases, saying it means health workers will have to do more with less. She also took aim at the increases to MSP premiums.


"We think it's a sad commentary that by 2015 more of the provincial revenue will come from MSP premiums then come from corporate taxes," she said. "I don't think that's a sustainable model for B.C. families."


Government is increasing MSP premiums by about four per cent on January 1, 2014, bringing the rate to $69.25 for a single person per month, and $138.50 for families of three or more.


To help with balancing, government also saved around $150 million that would have been due in the incoming year by pre-paying a variety of grants and other obligations during the outgoing year - a time when government incurred a more than $1 billion deficit.


Speaking Tuesday, de Jong called the government-wide spending controls "plausible and achievable".


"We knew it wouldn't be easy to get back to surplus budgets," he said, adding the cost has meant Tuesday's budget has not been able to include the usual pre-election spending spree.


"That will give our province an edge in attracting investment in a still-uncertain global economy."


Across all of government, spending is projected to increase by just 1.5 per cent each year over the next three years.


While de Jong stressed the prudence of Tuesday's budget, he was able to unveil some pre-election goodies, mostly focussed on helping families.

Government has changed a program introduced by former premier Gordon Campbell that has invested $1,000 for every child born after 2007 in a government managed post-secondary education fund. Parents were told they could expect a payment of about $2,200 for their child's post-secondary education by the time the child graduated high school.


On Tuesday, Clark's government announced parents can now access that fund much earlier, by having the province deposit $1,200 directly into the child's Registered Education Savings plan.


"When the child turns six years of age the government will send to their family - direct into an RESP -- $1,200," said de Jong, adding he hopes the measure will encourage parents to start registered savings plans to help pay for their children's university or college educations.


Tuesday's budget also includes a commitment of $76 million over three years to help create childcare spaces, as well as additional tax relief for parents starting in 2015. That tax relief program - the BC Early Childhood Tax Benefit - will be worth $660 for families making under $80,000 annually.

The temporary personal income tax increase promised in the budget will cover only the top income tax bracket, or those making more than $150,000. The move - which will last for two years until the end of 2015 - will raise the provincial rate to 16.8 per cent from 14.7 per cent.

For a person making $300,000, the increase would mean an extra $3,100 in taxes each year.


"We are asking people who make a little more to contribute a little more," said de Jong, adding the measure was needed to help return the province to a surplus position.


Tuesday's budget brings the province to a projected debt of $62.7 billion for the coming year, raising the province's debt-to-GDP ratio to 18.2 per cent.


Read more: http://www.vancouver...l#ixzz2LOEZ344e


Edited by inane, 19 February 2013 - 04:23 PM.

  • 0

#2 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,797 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 19 February 2013 - 04:21 PM

Selling assets to balance a budget is ridiculous. Capital and operating should not be mixed.
  • 1

#3 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,797 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 19 February 2013 - 04:50 PM

http://www.langleyti.../191906461.html

Editorial — Tax boosts a backhanded compliment to opposition

The BC Liberal government’s plans to boost income taxes on business and high-income earners takes a page out of the NDP opposition’s plans, and makes sense.


The NDP plan had called for the corporate tax rate to go to 12 per cent, where it stood in 2008. The BC Liberals are boosting the corporate tax rate to 11 per cent on April 1.

The provincial government also will impose a higher personal income tax rate on individuals with incomes of $150,000 or more. Their provincial income taxes will rise 2.1 per cent to a rate of 16.8 per cent, as of Jan. 1, 2014.


Both of these tax increases are necessary at this time, given the financial shackles the province is in. It has been running large deficits, at least partly because of much lower natural gas prices, which have affected government revenues.


The province is claiming it will balance the budget in 2013-14, largely because it plans to sell $800 million in surplus property. Given that the real estate market has softened somewhat, that is probably an optimistic figure. There is nothing wrong with selling surplus properties, but there are probably too many properties on this list.

The provincial government is also boosting MSP premiums again next year. This is completely unfair to moderate income earners, who do not get the exemption from paying the premiums that goes to low income people. This will be the fifth year in a row the premiums will increase, and they will have jumped by 28 per cent since 2008. There should be no additional boost in MSP premiums.


This budget is crafted with the May 14 election in mind, and while its revenue assumptions may be sound, as economist Tim O’Neill asserted on Monday, it is very much a political document.


It is designed to convince wavering voters that the BC Liberals are competent money managers. Over the course of the past 12 years, the Liberals have been sound money managers much of the time, but in recent years their record has been more mixed.


The Liberals were hoping for a big boost in revenue through the HST, but that was torpedoed by voters because of the bumbling way the government brought in the tax. That hurt their reputation as competent managers.


By adopting part of the NDP platform, the Liberals may have unintentionally telegraphed that the NDP too has good fiscal ideas.



And a comment from Lesli Boldt--If the BC debt is twice what it was under the NDP (62.7B vs 35.5B in 2002), how are the Liberals winning on fiscal responsibility?

Good question.
  • 1

#4 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,101 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 19 February 2013 - 05:00 PM

Selling assets to balance a budget is ridiculous. Capital and operating should not be mixed.


And yet one post down you ask how the debt has gone up so much. Well, the liberals did a lot of capital spending that wasn't in the operating budget.....

Oh, and selling assets when they are at historic highs is an awesome idea.

Edited by ronthecivil, 19 February 2013 - 05:02 PM.

  • 1

#5 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 19 February 2013 - 05:03 PM

BC Budgie???
Posted Image
  • 1
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#6 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,797 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 19 February 2013 - 05:05 PM

And yet one post down you ask how the debt has gone up so much. Well, the liberals did a lot of capital spending that wasn't in the operating budget.....

Oh, and selling assets when they are at historic highs is an awesome idea.


To cover operating costs? Come on Ron...
  • 0

#7 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,101 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 19 February 2013 - 05:22 PM

To cover operating costs? Come on Ron...


It's a good idea period.

To cover operating costs they did raise taxes and reign in spending. That's a step in the right direction.

In a slow economy the tax increases they already put in are about as much as we could probably take (and it might even be too much time will tell). If you know budgets that could be massively cut without the entire province going on strike I would be keen to hear them.
  • 0

#8 J.R.

J.R.

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,293 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 19 February 2013 - 05:22 PM

I still don't get why we even have corporate taxes...? It's all borne by the consumer in the end so we're kidding ourselves if we think corporations are actually contributing tax dollars.

Structure it so any money staying in the business (expansion, equipment, workforce investment etc) is not taxed. As soon as the money leaves the corp (stockholders, capital gains, income etc), you tax THOSE.

Wouldn't that encourage business investment, growth, jobs etc?
  • 1

"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

jg4428.jpg2s9up7p.jpg


#9 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,797 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 19 February 2013 - 05:26 PM

It's a good idea period.

To cover operating costs they did raise taxes and reign in spending. That's a step in the right direction.

In a slow economy the tax increases they already put in are about as much as we could probably take (and it might even be too much time will tell). If you know budgets that could be massively cut without the entire province going on strike I would be keen to hear them.


It's a good short term idea. Which of course is all these clowns think of.
  • 0

#10 J.R.

J.R.

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,293 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 19 February 2013 - 05:27 PM

It's a good short term idea. Which of course is all these clowns think of.


You obviously didn't hear Double C's speech about long term planning, LNG etc a week or so ago :P

Edited by J.R., 19 February 2013 - 05:28 PM.

  • 0

"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

jg4428.jpg2s9up7p.jpg


#11 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,101 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 19 February 2013 - 05:30 PM

I still don't get why we even have corporate taxes...? It's all borne by the consumer in the end so we're kidding ourselves if we think corporations are actually contributing tax dollars.

Structure it so any money staying in the business (expansion, equipment, workforce investment etc) is not taxed. As soon as the money leaves the corp (stockholders, capital gains, income etc), you tax THOSE.

Wouldn't that encourage business investment, growth, jobs etc?


The government needs money.

Although the fact that corporate taxes are already paid is why capital gains and dividends get preferential tax treatment.

And if you did do something like that you could end up with a heck of an unintentional consequence we are seeing right now where companies are all worried so they are sitting on piles of cash and not distributing it at all. In that situation they are in effect re-investing 100% of their taxes and would see corporate taxes dry up at exactly the wrong time.
  • 0

#12 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,101 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 19 February 2013 - 05:33 PM

You obviously didn't hear Double C's speech about long term planning, LNG etc a week or so ago :P


A massive expansion in natural gas exports (and while were at it build both of the pipelines for oil as well) would be about the only way we can expect to live the same standard of low taxes and high services everyone feels entitled to.

A wicked demographic bomb is about to go off where the share of people using services is going to skyrocket at the same time those paying for it drops. Unless a massive new sources of revenue (see above) or a massive reduction in costs (say goodbye to the healthcare system as you know it) is found (or both) then get used to a future of higher taxes and crappier services.
  • 0

#13 J.R.

J.R.

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,293 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 19 February 2013 - 05:37 PM

The government needs money.

Although the fact that corporate taxes are already paid is why capital gains and dividends get preferential tax treatment.

And if you did do something like that you could end up with a heck of an unintentional consequence we are seeing right now where companies are all worried so they are sitting on piles of cash and not distributing it at all. In that situation they are in effect re-investing 100% of their taxes and would see corporate taxes dry up at exactly the wrong time.


But if you replaced those corporate taxes with income, capital gains etc you'd replace those tax dollars... It just seems to me there has to be a better system.
  • 0

"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

jg4428.jpg2s9up7p.jpg


#14 Lancaster

Lancaster

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,441 posts
  • Joined: 03-September 12

Posted 19 February 2013 - 05:44 PM

Sinclair bashing the the government for cutting public service jobs, lol.
  • 0

#15 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,101 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 19 February 2013 - 05:45 PM

Sinclair bashing the the government for cutting public service jobs, lol.


They aren't cutting jobs. They are simply not replacing people that leave.

You know, attrition.
  • 0

#16 Gross-Misconduct

Gross-Misconduct

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,679 posts
  • Joined: 15-December 07

Posted 19 February 2013 - 07:41 PM

The Liberals can't be trusted on a good day, why would anyone believe the garbage Mike DeJong served up today?

But let's pretend the Liberals are trying to govern the province and not in say-anything-to-get elected mode. This budget has some of the NDP ideas that Dix has been saying for awhile now. Like the raising of corporate taxes and an increase to high end earners. But the Liberals trying to sell this as a legitimate balanced budget is laughable. It's balanced once we sell off 800 million is assets? lmao! And don't forget, DeJong relies on an increase in income from BC Hydro in this "balanced budget" We'll, do the math people. I did. If his projections are right, that will mean at least a 30% increase in everyone's Hydro bill to make up that revenue. But of course, DeJong didn't say that. And the MSP is going up yet again. That means the MSP has gone up 90% since 2001 (the year the Liberals took power.) The liberals lean hard on hard working families for their coffers. By the way, BC is the only province that charges MSP.

Anyone who still drinks the Liberal kool-aid needs to wake up. They are not the fiscally responsible government they pretend to be. The B.C. debt has increased 1.4 billion every year since they've been in power. That's double the provincial debt we had in 2001 (the year the Liberals took power). They wasted 200 million on software that had to be junked. They axed BC Place having a new name that would have generated some revenue because Christy Clark had a hissy fit with the president of Telus. And on and on it goes.

The Liberals are a joke. They are out of ideas. They are tired. They need to go.
  • 2
Posted Image

#17 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 19 February 2013 - 09:46 PM

The Liberals can't be trusted on a good day, why would anyone believe the garbage Mike DeJong served up today?

Historically way more trustworthy than the BC Dippers.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#18 Grapefruits

Grapefruits

    Fruit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,295 posts
  • Joined: 18-March 08

Posted 19 February 2013 - 10:13 PM

The Liberals can't be trusted on a good day, why would anyone believe the garbage Mike DeJong served up today?

But let's pretend the Liberals are trying to govern the province and not in say-anything-to-get elected mode. This budget has some of the NDP ideas that Dix has been saying for awhile now. Like the raising of corporate taxes and an increase to high end earners. But the Liberals trying to sell this as a legitimate balanced budget is laughable. It's balanced once we sell off 800 million is assets? lmao! And don't forget, DeJong relies on an increase in income from BC Hydro in this "balanced budget" We'll, do the math people. I did. If his projections are right, that will mean at least a 30% increase in everyone's Hydro bill to make up that revenue. But of course, DeJong didn't say that. And the MSP is going up yet again. That means the MSP has gone up 90% since 2001 (the year the Liberals took power.) The liberals lean hard on hard working families for their coffers. By the way, BC is the only province that charges MSP.

Anyone who still drinks the Liberal kool-aid needs to wake up. They are not the fiscally responsible government they pretend to be. The B.C. debt has increased 1.4 billion every year since they've been in power. That's double the provincial debt we had in 2001 (the year the Liberals took power). They wasted 200 million on software that had to be junked. They axed BC Place having a new name that would have generated some revenue because Christy Clark had a hissy fit with the president of Telus. And on and on it goes.

The Liberals are a joke. They are out of ideas. They are tired. They need to go.


Anyone thinking about drinking the NDP variety better think long and hard about what they're about to do.

Edited by zero-ONE-three, 19 February 2013 - 10:13 PM.

  • 0

Posted Image


#19 literaphile

literaphile

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 552 posts
  • Joined: 25-March 06

Posted 19 February 2013 - 10:31 PM

But if you replaced those corporate taxes with income, capital gains etc you'd replace those tax dollars... It just seems to me there has to be a better system.


I don't think that would work. Take this scenario: you have a corporation with, say, one shareholder, who's also the sole director. The corporation is generating money that it's not paying out. This person is doing pretty well, so they don't need to take the money right away. So what happens? Instead of the money being taxed as it comes to the corporation, it's not taxed at all. So the corporation can keep re-investing and re-investing, constantly making more money tax free. Eventually, the sole shareholder takes out some cash, but not all of it - a large chunk stays in there to invest. Maybe he only takes out what he absolutely needs, and never any more, knowing that, if he had to, the money's sitting in the corporation. The benefit to him is that he gets to defer paying income tax on his money until he wants to, and the money in his corporation isn't taxed at all while it's sitting in the corporation.

If that were possible I think a lot more people would be setting up personal corporations and handling their money that way so that they can basically put themselves in whatever tax bracket they want, and pay tax on income only when they want. I think the government would lose a lot of money if this were to happen, which would mean cuts across the board to basically everything.
  • 1

#20 silverpig

silverpig

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,456 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 03

Posted 19 February 2013 - 11:07 PM

I still don't get why we even have corporate taxes...? It's all borne by the consumer in the end so we're kidding ourselves if we think corporations are actually contributing tax dollars.

Structure it so any money staying in the business (expansion, equipment, workforce investment etc) is not taxed. As soon as the money leaves the corp (stockholders, capital gains, income etc), you tax THOSE.

Wouldn't that encourage business investment, growth, jobs etc?


Businesses don't invest just because they have money. There has to be a business case for it. Canadian corporations are sitting on tons of cash right now and aren't doing anything with it. They are holding it for a rainy day, or when the economy improves enough to justify investment. That cash is just dead, sitting there stagnant. If the federal conservatives hadn't lowered corporate tax rates so much, that money would be in the government coffers, being spent on a mix of good infrastructure projects and crappy fountains for one-day international parties.
  • 1
Moo

#21 silverpig

silverpig

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,456 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 03

Posted 19 February 2013 - 11:09 PM

I don't think that would work. Take this scenario: you have a corporation with, say, one shareholder, who's also the sole director. The corporation is generating money that it's not paying out. This person is doing pretty well, so they don't need to take the money right away. So what happens? Instead of the money being taxed as it comes to the corporation, it's not taxed at all. So the corporation can keep re-investing and re-investing, constantly making more money tax free. Eventually, the sole shareholder takes out some cash, but not all of it - a large chunk stays in there to invest. Maybe he only takes out what he absolutely needs, and never any more, knowing that, if he had to, the money's sitting in the corporation. The benefit to him is that he gets to defer paying income tax on his money until he wants to, and the money in his corporation isn't taxed at all while it's sitting in the corporation.

If that were possible I think a lot more people would be setting up personal corporations and handling their money that way so that they can basically put themselves in whatever tax bracket they want, and pay tax on income only when they want. I think the government would lose a lot of money if this were to happen, which would mean cuts across the board to basically everything.


That doesn't make sense. If the cash is forever tied up in the corporation, the person can never access it. If they ever want to access it, it gets taxed.
  • 0
Moo

#22 silverpig

silverpig

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,456 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 03

Posted 19 February 2013 - 11:11 PM

The Liberals can't be trusted on a good day, why would anyone believe the garbage Mike DeJong served up today?

But let's pretend the Liberals are trying to govern the province and not in say-anything-to-get elected mode. This budget has some of the NDP ideas that Dix has been saying for awhile now. Like the raising of corporate taxes and an increase to high end earners. But the Liberals trying to sell this as a legitimate balanced budget is laughable. It's balanced once we sell off 800 million is assets? lmao! And don't forget, DeJong relies on an increase in income from BC Hydro in this "balanced budget" We'll, do the math people. I did. If his projections are right, that will mean at least a 30% increase in everyone's Hydro bill to make up that revenue. But of course, DeJong didn't say that. And the MSP is going up yet again. That means the MSP has gone up 90% since 2001 (the year the Liberals took power.) The liberals lean hard on hard working families for their coffers. By the way, BC is the only province that charges MSP.

Anyone who still drinks the Liberal kool-aid needs to wake up. They are not the fiscally responsible government they pretend to be. The B.C. debt has increased 1.4 billion every year since they've been in power. That's double the provincial debt we had in 2001 (the year the Liberals took power). They wasted 200 million on software that had to be junked. They axed BC Place having a new name that would have generated some revenue because Christy Clark had a hissy fit with the president of Telus. And on and on it goes.

The Liberals are a joke. They are out of ideas. They are tired. They need to go.


As someone who wasn't well off and had to pay MSP at one time, I'm annoyed that they are raising the rates, even though I don't live in BC anymore.

Your Hydro rates issue is a bit of a red herring. Go compare electricity prices in BC to other places in North America.
  • 0
Moo

#23 literaphile

literaphile

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 552 posts
  • Joined: 25-March 06

Posted 19 February 2013 - 11:14 PM

That doesn't make sense. If the cash is forever tied up in the corporation, the person can never access it. If they ever want to access it, it gets taxed.


Yes, but it gets taxed when they want, which could be years after the money is already earned. Obviously this sort of scheme doesn't work for those who live paycheque to paycheque, but for the "1%", this represents a huge loss of revenue since a rich person could keep money in a corporation for years, investing it and generating more money without paying tax.

Moreover, this would make the consequences of income-spreading even more drastic. If, say, the guy were to make his kids shareholders and pay the dividends to them, he could ensure that they still in a low tax bracket and thus pay little income tax (or maybe none at all). Then, the money is still getting paid out and the government is getting far below what they should be getting in tax revenue.
  • 0

#24 Grapefruits

Grapefruits

    Fruit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,295 posts
  • Joined: 18-March 08

Posted 19 February 2013 - 11:45 PM

As someone who wasn't well off and had to pay MSP at one time, I'm annoyed that they are raising the rates, even though I don't live in BC anymore.

Your Hydro rates issue is a bit of a red herring. Go compare electricity prices in BC to other places in North America.


Medical isn't free or cheap for that matter. Rates go up for everything when everyone expects a raise every year.

Red Herring? Hydro rates are relatively cheap compared to the rest of Canada or N.A. for that matter.

Edited by zero-ONE-three, 19 February 2013 - 11:47 PM.

  • 0

Posted Image


#25 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,797 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 19 February 2013 - 11:49 PM

The B.C. Liberal government likely has the provincial NDP “jumping for joy,” says Martyn Brown, chief of staff to former premier Gordon Campbell, in a scathing critique of the budget during an interview with CBC News anchor Gloria Macarenko Tuesday.

Brown, a longtime Liberal insider in B.C., said the budget had done the NDP’s tax-raising “dirty work” for them.

“The budget basically conceded the tax turf to the NDP,” Brown said.

“I think the only ones jumping for joy today, really, will be the NDP because, effectively, this government has done the dirty work of saying it needs to increase corporate taxes, it needs to increase personal taxes on higher income earners, it’s increasing MSP premiums.”

He said the Liberals basically came up with the very tax agenda that the New Democrats had been suggesting.

“And most of that won’t take effect until next January, a year from now, so you won’t feel it in this election year but you sure will feel it in the years to come,” said Brown.

'A lot to do about nothing'
Brown also predicted the budget will be dead before it has much chance to be enacted.

“It’s not going to matter. This budget won’t see the light of day no matter who gets elected. They’re going to have to introduce a new budget. All the assumptions will be re-evaluated in May and all of the spending will be re-evaluated in May. So really, this is a lot to do about nothing.”

Brown, author of the e-book, Towards a New Government in British Columbia, has been highly critical of the two-year-old Christy Clark administration, and for months has been predicting an NDP victory in the May 14 election.

He says he still is pulling for the Liberals to win, but isn’t holding out much hope.

“Miracles do happen in politics, but it’s a long shot, to put it mildly,” Brown said.ttp://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2013/02/19/bc-martyn-brown-budget-critique.html?cmp=rss


J
  • 0

#26 pwnstar

pwnstar

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,311 posts
  • Joined: 20-January 10

Posted 20 February 2013 - 12:45 AM

Charging taxpayers their money to repay money used from the taxpayers.
  • 0

Posted Image


#27 J.R.

J.R.

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,293 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 20 February 2013 - 12:08 PM

I don't think that would work. Take this scenario: you have a corporation with, say, one shareholder, who's also the sole director. The corporation is generating money that it's not paying out. This person is doing pretty well, so they don't need to take the money right away. So what happens? Instead of the money being taxed as it comes to the corporation, it's not taxed at all. So the corporation can keep re-investing and re-investing, constantly making more money tax free. Eventually, the sole shareholder takes out some cash, but not all of it - a large chunk stays in there to invest. Maybe he only takes out what he absolutely needs, and never any more, knowing that, if he had to, the money's sitting in the corporation. The benefit to him is that he gets to defer paying income tax on his money until he wants to, and the money in his corporation isn't taxed at all while it's sitting in the corporation.

If that were possible I think a lot more people would be setting up personal corporations and handling their money that way so that they can basically put themselves in whatever tax bracket they want, and pay tax on income only when they want. I think the government would lose a lot of money if this were to happen, which would mean cuts across the board to basically everything.

Businesses don't invest just because they have money. There has to be a business case for it. Canadian corporations are sitting on tons of cash right now and aren't doing anything with it. They are holding it for a rainy day, or when the economy improves enough to justify investment. That cash is just dead, sitting there stagnant. If the federal conservatives hadn't lowered corporate tax rates so much, that money would be in the government coffers, being spent on a mix of good infrastructure projects and crappy fountains for one-day international parties.


A sole shareholder would likely most commonly be a small-to medium business. Seems to me it would be helpful to help those guys be more competitive...

It seems to me that someone with more knowledge in finance/taxation could come up with ways to ensure that companies not simply sit on money in perpetuity and/or reward companies who re-invest profits in to labour, hardware etc. Perhaps something like a reduction of taxes on dividends for companies who re-invest, hire labour etc. Just "spit-balling".
  • 0

"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

jg4428.jpg2s9up7p.jpg


#28 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,262 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 20 February 2013 - 12:49 PM

Sinclair bashing the the government for cutting public service jobs, lol.


The day I see Sinclair praising a Liberal government for a single thing is the day I start looking around for the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

It isn't in the least surprising that big unions hate a budget put forth by any party but the NDP. Nor certian CDCers...
  • 0
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#29 ahzdeen

ahzdeen

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,569 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 03

Posted 20 February 2013 - 01:55 PM

A sole shareholder would likely most commonly be a small-to medium business. Seems to me it would be helpful to help those guys be more competitive...

That's what the small business deduction is for.
  • 0

#30 bolt

bolt

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 504 posts
  • Joined: 03-September 09

Posted 20 February 2013 - 02:27 PM

The BC Liberal election platform; The worst of both worlds (left and right)

-Increasing Corporate taxes
-Increasing General Taxes
-Inceasing MSP every year averaging 5% a year
-Raising tuition rates (what were you paying 5 years ago?)
-Selling profitable crown corporation assets
-Spending millions of dollars of self serving praise government ads
-Paying millions of dollars to defend a corrupt Basi and Virk
-HST
-Increased the debt to the highest levels in BC history

Why vote for these clowns?
  • 0






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.