Skip to main content

“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” ~~ John G. Diefenbaker

JOHN RUSTAD -- There are three ways a government can provide ‘more’. First, raise taxes. Second reduce spending. Third, grow the economy.


Note ... the numbers presented in this commentary are an approximation


Everyone wants more! Personally, professionally, environmentally, economically, etc.


No matter where you look there is always a desire for more. When it comes to government, the list is an exceptionally long one. More housing, more nursing, more long-term care, more wages, more health services, more education, more infrastructure, more, more, more… oh yes, and don’t forget more “free” stuff.


My guess is that most people will not want to read this as it is too long, too boring or people will think it is not relevant to them. But it is what it is.


As we approach a new BC budget with a MASSIVE deficit, these are the problems we all face as a society. The term “more” takes on a very different meaning when you are borrowing at an unsustainable rate from the future. This is a recipe for fiscal disaster but perhaps that should be the topic for another post.


So, what does “more” really mean?


It means a desire for an increase without having to pay for it. In other words, it is great to ask for more as long as someone else is paying for it. But how does a BC government provide more?


Keep in mind that a 1% wage increase costs about $300 million. A 1% increase in spending represents $600 million. A 1% increase in personal income taxes represents $120 million. Increasing the PST from 7% to 8% is about $1.2 billion.


At $5 per ton increase to the carbon tax represents a $250 million increase in government revenue (in case you are wondering why the government supports raising it to $170 per ton from the current $40 per ton).


There are three ways a government can provide “more”.


First, raise taxes. This is problematic as it means taking more to provide more. Second is to reduce spending. In other words, take away services, wages, employment, etc… and redirect that money to other priorities. The last way is to grow the economy and therefore get more tax dollars from that economic increase.


BC’s economy (pre pandemic) was around $253 billion which through taxation and other revenues supports BC’s budget of about $60 billion. This roughly translates to (without any changes to taxation or other revenue increases) $1 of government revenue for every $4 of GDP. So if you can grow the economy by 3% ($7.5 billion) that means government revenues would grow by approximately $1.8 billion. This is why increasing economic growth is the best way to meet the demand for “more”.


The NDP government is focused on the first option which is raising taxes. They have already increased taxes by more than $13 billion. So perhaps let’s look at just what this means.


According to recent studies, about 42% of people are within a very small amount of money per pay cheque from not being able to make ends meet. The majority of those are already having to borrow money to make ends meet. In BC, there are more than 2 million people who don’t pay income taxes. That means if you want to raise money as a government you have to be very careful.


If you raise taxes on the bottom 45% of the people, what you are really doing is making it less affordable to live. In other words, you are reducing their standard of living. This also means it will increase the demand for government support.


Raising taxes on the remaining 55% will also reduce their standard of living but will not necessarily mean an increase in the demand for government support.


BC will have a deficit of about $15 billion. BC’s economy will likely contract this year which means future growth will be from a smaller base. As the economy recovers it will likely be 2022 before we get back to pre-pandemic levels, but government spending will still increase. So how will the government manage this problem?


I am betting the BC NDP will raise income taxes by about 10%. But this only means raising $1.2 billion. So, they will need to do more.


Increasing the carbon tax by $5 per ton per year will mean an additional $250 million. They may also raise the PST by 1% or about $1.2 billion. Raising the corporate tax rate by 1% will mean an additional $450 million. They will count on about a 5 percent GDP growth (recovery) or roughly $3 billion in added revenue. Drop off the $2 billion election giveaway. This will leave a gap of about $7 billion. Property sales are booming so this may also reduce this further by about $1 billion.


So, going forward BC will likely have a deficit of about $6 billion without any further spending increases. My guess is the NDP will start looking at asset taxes, increasing property taxes and perhaps even an inheritance tax in an attempt to further reduce this.


Given they just won an election, I suspect they will try to do ALL of these things in this spring’s budget.

John Rustad ... was re-elected MLA of Nechako Lakes last Fall, and currently serves as the Official Opposition Critic for Forests, Lands, and Natural Resources, as well as sitting on the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders, and Private Bills


Prior to first being elected as MLA in 2005, John worked in the forest industry for more than 20 years. In 1995, he formed Western Geographic Information Systems Inc., a consulting service to the forest industry. John was also elected as a school trustee in 2002, where he worked on a variety of innovative projects.


Born and raised in Prince George, John has lived in northern B.C. all his life. When time permits, he enjoys golfing and watersports. In 2009, he and his wife Kim moved to Cluculz Lake, where they enjoy the quiet beauty of rural living.


Popular posts from this blog

It seems the call for blood donors is being responded to, however ... “This effort is a marathon, not a sprint” says Canadian Blood Services

A week and a half ago I wrote the commentary ... “ While the national inventory is currently strong, an increase in blood donor cancellations is a warning sign of potential challenges to maintaining a health inventory of blood ” It was written as a result of talk about a potential blood shortage that would occur if people stopped donating due to the COVID-19 virus. It seems the call to Canadians was responded to, however, as I was told this afternoon ... “ T his effort is a marathon, not a sprint ”. As it now stands now, donors are able to attend clinics which are held in Vancouver (2), Victoria, Surrey, and in Kelowna, so I asked if there any plans to re-establish traveling clinics to others communities - for example in Kamloops, Prince George, Prince Rupert, Revelstoke or Cranbrook, and perhaps further north at perhaps Ft. St. John? According to Communications Lead Regional Public Affairs Specialist Marcelo Dominguez, Canadian Blood Services is still on

FEDLSTED -- Rules will have to relax-- the question is how and when

The media has created a fervour over the mathematical models that allegedly help governments predict the future of Coronavirus infections in the general population. Mathematical modelling has limited use and value. We need to understand is that the data available on Coronavirus (COVID-19) infections in Canada is far too small for statistical reliability. The data available for the whole world is useless due to variables in how nations responded to Coronavirus infections. There is no commonality in steps taken to combat virus spread and no similarity in the age demographics of world nations, so the numbers you see on the daily tracking of world infections are not useful in developing a model of infection rates that can be relied on. Mathematical models of the future spread of Coronavirus are better than nothing, but not a whole lot better.  Mathematical models must include assumptions on virus spreads, and various factors involved. As they are used in projections, a small erro

WUN FEATHER -- can we just put those two names to bed for a while? You can call me an ‘Indian’ and I won't mind. And let's not call the farmers and ranchers ‘Settlers’ anymore

Hey there # TeamCanada !   I can't take it any more! Well, I guess I can, but I don't want to. I want to talk about the names we call each other. My very best friends, and all my Elderly Aunts and Uncles call me an Indian. I have walked into the most magnificent dining hall at the Air Liquide Head office, Quai D'orsay in Paris, France, surrounded by the worlds top producing Cryogenics team, and Patrick Jozon, the President of Air Liquide, has seen me enter the room, and yelled: " Bonjour! There is Warren! He is my Indian friend from Canada! He and I chased Beavers together in Northern BC!" And over 400 people turned to look at me and then they all smiled, and nodded. To most European people, an Indian is an absolute ICON!   The ultimate symbol of North America. They love us. And then, one time I had just gotten married and took vacation days off to take my new wife to meet my Grandmother; I was so proud. But as soon a


Show more