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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

BC cannot regulate, redesign, and reinterpret its way to a stable forestry sector. Communities need clear rules, predictable timelines, and accountability for results.

Photo credit:  Atli Resources LP   BC’s Forestry Crisis Continues with Closure of Beaver Cove Chip Facility   As industry leaders, Indigenous partners, and contractors gather this week at the BC Natural Resources Forum in Prince George, the gap between government rhetoric and reality could not be clearer. Just hours after the Eby government once again touted reconciliation, certainty, and economic opportunity under DRIPA, Atli Chip Ltd, a company wholly owned by the ’Na̱mg̱is First Nation, announced it is managing the orderly closure of its Beaver Cove chip facility. The closure comes despite public tax dollars, repeated government announcements, and assurances that new policy frameworks would stabilize forestry employment and create long-term opportunity in rural and coastal British Columbia. “British Columbians are being told one story, while communities are living another,” said Ward Stamer, Critic for Forests. “This closure makes it clear that announcement...

Stamer: Hope for Forestry Completely Shattered After Another Provincial Review Driven by DRIPA

IMAGE CREDIT:  Provincial Forestry Advisory Council Conservative Critic for Forests Ward Stamer says the final report from the Provincial Forestry Advisory Council confirms the worst fears of forestry workers and communities; instead of addressing the real issues driving mill closures and job losses, the NDP has produced a report that ignores industry realities and doubles down on governance restructuring. Despite years of warnings from forestry workers, contractors, and industry organizations about permitting delays, regulatory costs, fibre access, and the failure of BC Timber Sales, the PFAC report offers no urgency, no timelines, and no concrete action to stop the ongoing decline of the sector. “ This report completely shatters any remaining hope that the government is serious about saving forestry ,” said Stamer.  “ We didn’t need another study to tell us what industry has been saying for years. While mills close and workers lose their livelihoods, the NDP is focused on re...

FORSETH – My question is, ‘How do we decide who is blue enough to be called a Conservative?’

How do we decide who’s blue enough to be a Conservative? AS OF TODAY (Friday January 30 th ), there are now eight individuals who have put their names forward to lead the Conservative Party of British Columbia. Having been involved with BC’s Conservatives since 2010, and having seen MANY ups and downs, having 8 people say “I want to lead the party” is to me, an incredible turn-around from the past. Sadly, however, it seems that our party cannot seem to shake what I, and others, call a purity test of ‘what is a Conservative’. And that seems to have already come to the forefront of the campaign by a couple of candidates. Let me just say as a Conservative Party of BC member, and as someone active in the party, that frustrates me to no end. Conservatives, more than any other political philosophy or belief, at least to me, seems to have the widest and broadest spectrum of ideals.   For the most part, they are anchored by these central thoughts --- smaller and less intru...

Labels

Show more