I can't - and won't - count the times where I've pointed out that increasing the GST is probably the best way of raising revenues to deal with a federal structural deficit whose size is almost exactly equal to the revenues foregone by the 2 points the Conservatives cut from the GST. And I have sung - and will continue to sing - its merits as an efficient, growth-friendly tax.
But every time I do this, someone invariably points out that "everyone knows" that increasing the GST is ballot-box poison, that there's no way it will ever happen and that I should take this into account. I understand why people keep telling me this, but I really don't see why I should pay attention.
Firstly, I don't buy it. It's not clear to me that the Conservatives owe their 2006 victory to the GST cut, and governments in Quebec and Nova Scotia recently increased the TVQ/HST without - as far as I can tell - a great amount of fuss. Voters are adults, and can generally be counted on to make adult decisions if offered adult choices.
And even if voters do have an irrational aversion to the GST, I don't see why I should be internalising this tendency. When politicians choose to sacrifice evidence-based policy in favour of electoral gain, they should be called on it.
Finally, it's important to keep the option alive in policy debates. If people are afraid to even mention the GST, then it falls off the table. Fear of a name increases fear of the thing itself.
"Voters are adults, and can generally be counted on to make adult decisions if offered adult choices."
Can't wait for the upcoming B.C. referendum....
But I agree with your later points, please continue to point out that raising the G(H)ST is a good plan for many reasons.
Posted by: Declan | January 30, 2011 at 08:07 PM
So we come back to the excellent explanation of politics given in "Yes, Minister": A controversial decision will cost you a few votes. A courageous decision will cost you the election.
The original implementation of the GST was courageous. An increase in the rate now would be controversial.
Posted by: Determinant | January 30, 2011 at 08:17 PM
I'll second Declan's sentiments. Keep pluggin' at her SG.
Irony of ironies, it was a prime minister who was a lawyer by trade who introduced the federal value-added sales tax (GST) and then it was an economics-trained prime minister who was the first to cut it, not once but twice. Goes to show the power of electoral compromise.
Once the western-based Conservatives leave the federal coffers in tatters, another Quebec-based coalition will rise up through ashes and restore fiscal sanity in Canada. I want the movie rights.
Posted by: westslope | January 30, 2011 at 09:11 PM
"A courageous decision will cost you the election."
This is of course, presupposing that they'd win the election *without* such a proposal. I don't see the Liberals or NDP winning anything any time soon.
I understanding selling out for a price. What gets to me is how low the price is.
Posted by: Mike Moffatt | January 30, 2011 at 09:24 PM
As one of those who said "everyone knows..." in the other thread, I will also say that I'm also glad you and others keep putting it out there.
Posted by: Jim Sentance | January 30, 2011 at 09:56 PM
Hmm, the Globe is speculating that the NDP and the Liberals are going to dig in their heels over corporate tax cuts. I believe the Tories will cave on this point and not implement the cuts. Corporate taxes aren't like personal income tax politically since corporations don't vote and most voters assume they are stuffed full of money, reality notwithstanding. And no, you can't rely on the economist's reply of "corporations just pass wealth to people". Inequality of wealth makes that irrelevant politically. People care about employment income, not corporate income.
Posted by: Determinant | January 30, 2011 at 11:04 PM
I'm with Jim Sentance.
Canadians have a cognitive black hole reserved for consumption taxes and automated traffic enforcement. It sucks in all sense and reason, but not before smashing it to bits and radiating heat in the process.
Posted by: Patrick | January 30, 2011 at 11:22 PM
Isn't it legitimate to care about the regressivity of a GST? (I assume you're not arguing for a progressive consumption tax.) Also, might a high GST rate expose individuals with unsecure income to more risk, and therefore welfare-reducing?
Perhaps Canada has an excellent transfer system which addresses all these concerns. Even so, I personally would prefer not to rely on government transfers. I would prefer to pay a higher tax on income so people are less dependant on government transfers. Just my personal preference on what which outcome seems more just.
Interested in what economists think about the impact of a higher GST on promoting socially just outcomes. While I understand some economists prefer to focus on "engineering problems", it seems to me that economists have a lot to contribute to our understanding of what a socially just society looks like.
Posted by: Kien | January 31, 2011 at 12:07 AM
'I would prefer to pay a higher tax on income so people are less dependant on government transfers. Just my personal preference on what which outcome seems more just.’ - I’m assuming when you say taxing income seems more ‘just’ you mean it’s more progressive. But you answer this critique yourself when you say 'Canada has an excellent transfer system which addresses all these concerns’. A transfer system can address the regressiveness of a consumption tax. With that in mind taxing consumption is preferable to income tax to most economist because it doesn’t distort people incentives to work and therefore results in a bigger economic pie to be had by all, i.e. what economists mean when they say consumptions tax are more efficient. Essentially it’s like a free lunch. That’s the theory anyway.
Posted by: DavidN | January 31, 2011 at 05:35 AM
"Isn't it legitimate to care about the regressivity of a GST?"
Canada has a pretty progressive income tax system and a pretty reasonable social safety net (I miss Canada a lot). I think the best way of ensuring that the country continues on a decent course (in terms of having such a great social network) is to avoid deficits like the plague. Otherwise, the alternative is to cut services, which seems to be worse.
Random tax cuts have begun to really annoy me (I currently reside in the US where this is worse but I remember Mike Harris sending out rebate checks). I am delighted by tax cuts in the face of a sustained surplus and I am happy to cut out wasteful spending. But government provides a lot of crucial services and a value added tax is fairly efficient at raising revenue (as it is harder to plan to be "tax aggressive" to minimize payment).
Posted by: Joseph | January 31, 2011 at 06:56 AM
Isn't it legitimate to care about the regressivity of a GST?
Of course. But we already have a workaround for that: cash transfers to low-income households. That's what the GST/HST rebate does.
Posted by: Stephen Gordon | January 31, 2011 at 07:42 AM
Point 4 is 100% right, not some wrong talking point. The northern Europeans moveing fist is exactly what should be expected in a race to the bottom scenario, because they are small open economies, which are hit first by the tax dumpings of others and can profit disproportional when they do it themself.
Point 5, well, it seems corporate taxes are already so low that a massive increase would be necessary. Might have something to do with point 4 the destructive race to the bottom in which Canada participates.
Note point 4 isnt just about capital intense industries moveing abroad. The major effect are just accounting tricks to book the profits at the lowest possible tax jurisdictions, barely legal tax avoidance shemes. Sometimes that involves obvious moves like a letter box company on the Caymans which owns some intelectual property or brand rights. That can only be done up to a point. Another way is to book the profits within an integrated supply chain to the factory situated in the country with the lowest taxes. Thats where the Northern Europeans profit. Say some product real value added is 20% in France, 20% in Germany, 20% in Denmark, 20% Netherlands, 20 % Italy. Now fiscal authorities cant be sold that all profits from that product fall on the Caymans where no production or research facilities exist.. Its however impossible to proof for them that accounting which attributes 80% of the profits to Denmark is dishonest. In that very close to reality scenario, Denmark profits through both higher tax revenues since profits booked Denmark go up and new high paid jobs. e
Posted by: meh | January 31, 2011 at 07:47 AM
My own concern is what tax policy will best lead to a balance budget or (preferably) a surplus during periods of strong economic growth.
Posted by: R. McKean | January 31, 2011 at 09:47 AM
"I believe the Tories will cave on this point and not implement the cuts."
Unlikely. The 2011 cuts are already in place, so to not implement them would require a retroactive increase in corporate tax rates (i.e., the sort of tax policy which says "banana republic", although I suppose they could merely raise tax rates as of July 1, 2011 for the balance fo the year). At most you might see a delay in the 2012 cuts. I think the more likely scenario is that the Tories will buy off the NDP with billion in other programs/targetted tax cuts that both parties can claim are win-win policies, since it looks like the Tories will clear their 200-11 deficit targets with a few billion or so dollars to spare.
Moreover, a campaign on corporate tax cuts has all the elements of a campaign for free trade (and remember how that worked out for the Liberals and Tories). As with free trade, lots of voters "know" that corporate tax cuts/free trade are bad for them, no matter what what the "so-called" "experts" tell them. But, as with free-trade, the Tories probably figure that, even if the majority of voters oppose corporate tax cuts, so long as they're split between 3 opposition parties (as opposed to 2 in 1988), it doesn't hurt them, and may even benefit them to the extent that blue-Liberals split off to vote for the Conservatives. Also, if the main campaign issue boils down to opposition to corporate tax cuts, the NDP has significantly more credibility on the issue than the Liberals do, so there's a real risk that the Liberals could find their vote on the left peeling off to the NDP.
Furthermore, given that the Tories and the NDP have huge databases of clips and quotes from every Liberal MP who matters spouting off on the merits of corporate tax cuts (the Tories, after all, are only continuing a policy started by the Liberals) and the foolishness of the NDP's opposition to them, I doubt very much they'd be all that reluctant to campaign on the issue. You can already picture the ads. For the Tories: "Tax Cuts are good, but don't take our word for it, here's what Iggy/Goodale/Hall-Findley/etc. said about corporate tax cuts in 2010 , in 2009 , [etc.]". For the NDP: "Michael Ignatieff says he's against corporate tax cuts. But that wasn't what he said in 2009, , 2008 , [and so on]. He didn't even bother to show up to vote in 2007 when Harper enacted them [cue picture of an empty chair in the house]. He didn't stand up for working Canadians in 2007, why should you trust him to do it now?" ).
Posted by: Bob Smith | January 31, 2011 at 10:26 AM
Stephen: "governments in Quebec and Nova Scotia recently increased the TVQ/HST without - as far as I can tell - a great amount of fuss."
True, but has that been made easier by the fact that Quebec and Nova Scotia could say that they are only "returning" the HST rate to 15% (or whatever the combined rate is in Quebec)? In other words, would that had been a politically harder sell if they'd been increasing the HST rate to 17% from 15%. Does anyonw know how the 2.5% VAT increase in the UK has gone over, that might be a better example.
Posted by: Bob Smith | January 31, 2011 at 10:33 AM
I'll make a couple of comments about consumption taxes in Canada:
First the level of opposition to them has a lot to do with what part of the country you are in ranging from Quebec where the GST/QST system has had strong support from both federalists and sovereigntists(effective the two main political blocks) to BC where your had extroadinary opposition to the GST being introduced back in 1991 and you have huge opposition to the HST more recently. I will say that while often not recognized BC historically has had a tradition of particularily English strain of nationalist populisism that is pretty unique to Canada or for that matter the rest of the english speaking world.(If you go back to Australia or New Zealand politics pre 1980s in the days of Robert Muldoon and "Black" Jack McEwen there were actually a lot similarities between the political culture of AUS, NZ, and BC. However the populist politics of someone like Bill Vander Zalm are essentially gone from modern day AUS and NZ other than perhaps Winston Peters fringe NZFirst Party kind of like Vander Zalm's BCFirst Party.
My sense is that at the Federal party level there are elements of both the NDP and Conservatives that are for and against GST increase I suspect again largely based on geography. I also sense if completely unexpectedly you are actually had a Liberal majority govt again a GST increase would be very much on the table.
Posted by: Tim | January 31, 2011 at 12:52 PM
I am not sure I understand the reference to Voldemort. Is that the guy from Harry Potter? I have never read the books. Was he against consumption taxes or something :-)
I also do not understand the references to 'selling out'. The Conservatives have been reducing all sorts of taxes since they came to office - the GST was one part of a larger program of tax reductions. I was involved in many of the internal debates from 2005 to 2008, and I would argue we reduced taxes or all sorts because we genuinely thought that lower taxes are good for the country and its economy. In fact, we said we would cut income, corporate and consumption taxes, and we did. I'm not sure why promising to cut taxes and then doing exactly that constitutes 'selling out'.
Posted by: Ian Brodie | January 31, 2011 at 01:35 PM
But you must remember the five-part chorus from economists across the spectrum - including those who favour a smaller government - that the GST should have been the very bottom of any tax-cutting agenda. Different taxes have different effects, and the GST is the most benign one the feds have.
Posted by: Stephen Gordon | January 31, 2011 at 02:11 PM
Ian, it's selling out, because the revenue sacrificed on a GST cut could have been used for further reductions elsewhere that would have created a more efficient tax system. I'm sure you know this, and that's why it sounds like you're being coy, to me.
Posted by: Andrew F | January 31, 2011 at 02:45 PM
The decision to cut the GST by 2% is actually something I don't have a huge problem with in the context of Ontario agreeing to harmonize with the GST(I'll forget about BC and its own mess for now). While there was not a direct quid pro pro behind Ontario's decision in 2009 the Conservatives if anyone paid attention back between 2006 and 2009 called for GST PST harmonization in several throne speeches at the same time they were cutting the GST. I have also read from several sources that the Liberals back in 1990s in private put a two percent GST cut on the table if the Ontario govt agreed to harmonize. I guess the interesting argument to me would be whether the benefits of the Ontario govt's decision to harmonize outweigh the downsides of cutting the GST by the feds.
Moving back to corporate taxes while not entirely familiar with the Liberal platform my understanding is that they do not intend to use additional revenues from increasing corporate taxes to bring down the deficit sooner instead they are pledging to increase federal program spending.
An interesting idea I have heard is to use the existing mechanisms to distribute HST(remember GST/HST revenues all flow into a central fund in Ottawa before they are divied up to the feds and the HST participating provinces) to distribute the federal five percent portion in leu of a equivilent amount a federal transfers to the provinces. One of problem with this is some mechanism would have to be created where the provinces could choose to increase or decrease the rate just like with CPP premiums and would open up the possiblity that a province like Alberta or BC where many don't like consumption taxes could get "outvoted" by lets say two thirds of provinces representing two thirds of the population.
Posted by: Tim | January 31, 2011 at 02:49 PM
Ian, did the 'internal discussions' conclude that creating a structural deficit was good for the country?
Posted by: Patrick | January 31, 2011 at 02:50 PM
Always fun to hear from my old prof. Ian Brodie!
RE: 'Selling out' - that comment by me was made in context to the *Liberal* about face on corporate taxes.
Posted by: Mike Moffatt | January 31, 2011 at 03:21 PM
But 'selling out' probably wasn't the best phrase to use there. How about 'crass political opportunism with little-to-no electoral benefit'?
Posted by: Mike Moffatt | January 31, 2011 at 03:24 PM
People missed Kien's comments on the political problems with relying on transfers to make up for regressivity. Given a choice it is more socially just to reduce the wealth of the wealthy at source rather than rely on politically vulnerable transfers. The first thing under attack are always welfare payments.
The other part of this is the economists' contempt for democracy that really reeks off the page. Free trade was implemented against the wishes of the people, the GST was implemented against the wishes of the people, and absolutely no one has a problem with that, it seems---but instead people hopefully discuss how party politics can be leveraged to continue to subvert the will of the people.
Posted by: Mandos | January 31, 2011 at 04:18 PM
"The other part of this is the economists' contempt for democracy that really reeks off the page. Free trade was implemented against the wishes of the people"
Please explain. There was an election on the issue (1988). The Tories won a majority. How is that not democratic?
Posted by: Mike Moffatt | January 31, 2011 at 04:35 PM
The only possible way I could see that claim making any sense is if you argue that 50%+ of the voters voted for someone other than the Tories. But by that logic then *every* decision made in Canada since World War II has been un-democratic, except campaign promises implemented in Diefenbaker's 2nd term or Mulroney's 1st.
Posted by: Mike Moffatt | January 31, 2011 at 04:41 PM
"Please explain. There was an election on the issue (1988). The Tories won a majority. How is that not democratic?"
Moreover, why are economists blamed for free trade? Given that it was generally beneficial for Canada, I'm sure they'll take the credit for it, but I don't know of a provision of Canada's constitution that delegates power to the Canadian Economics Association nor do I know of a cabal of powerful economists who control the world (although, maybe if I'd completed the PHD they'd have let me in on the secret). It was the House of Commons (and the Senate) who ratified the FTA and I doubt there was more than one or two economists (if any) in parliament back then.
Now, if you want to blame people for free trade, maybe you should blame lawyers, because parliament hill is infested with them.
Posted by: Bob Smith | January 31, 2011 at 04:50 PM
The FTA was bought through historically enormous third-party advertising from vested corporate interests.
Posted by: Mandos | January 31, 2011 at 04:50 PM
"The FTA was bought through historically enormous third-party advertising from vested corporate interests."
On behalf of economists? Even if true (and the point is highly debatable) what does that have to do with economists' "contempt for democracy"?
Also, note the implicit contempt for the average voter in that assertion. They're all so gullible that their vote can be influenced by shiny ads over their own best interest. (Mind you, that wouldn't explain why the Charlottetown Accord was soundly defeated despite the yes-side outspending the no-side by a margin of something like 7 to 1). I don't think anyone spouting the "elections can be bought with advertising" routine should be commenting on the alleged "contempt for democracy" of others.
Posted by: Bob Smith | January 31, 2011 at 04:56 PM
Tim: "An interesting idea I have heard is to use the existing mechanisms to distribute HST(remember GST/HST revenues all flow into a central fund in Ottawa before they are divied up to the feds and the HST participating provinces) to distribute the federal five percent portion in leu of a equivilent amount a federal transfers to the provinces."
I hadn't heard that one, but I wouldn't be surprised if, when the current funding agreement between the feds and the provinces come up for renegotiation in a few years time, we don't see the feds saying: Look, why are we raising money than giving it to you to spend? You guys have all the same powers that we do, so if you need money to fund the heath care system, we're more than happy to raise it through the HST system for you. Tell you what, we'll cut our take from the HST by X%, and you can levy a provincial rate of whatever you charge now plus X% (this would buy off political resistance in places like Alberta and Saskatchewan). And, if you need more money down the road, well, darned if we haven't set up a particularly efficient and simple way for YOU to raise it".
Posted by: Bob Smith | January 31, 2011 at 05:08 PM
There is a reason why advertising works in influencing elections, and it has nothing to do with "contempt." Otherwise, people wouldn't spend large sums of money to advertise. Even spending on a *losing* campaign influences the discourse in the long run. Money actually really truly is corrosive to democracy.
In the case of the FTA, economists serve as a backup chorus to give the policy an academic imprimatur and respectability.
Posted by: Mandos | January 31, 2011 at 05:22 PM
Ah jeez. This isn't going to turn into yet another reading from the Book of Manufacturing Consent, Mandos. Consider the hijacking over.
Posted by: Stephen Gordon | January 31, 2011 at 05:42 PM
"In the case of the FTA, economists serve as a backup chorus to give the policy an academic imprimatur and respectability."
Well that's it, if advocate for ideas that are politically unpopular, you're demonstrating contempt for democracy. Someone tell that to abolitionists, suffragettes, socialists, civil rights activists, etc.
Posted by: Bob Smith | January 31, 2011 at 06:13 PM
Bob, I'd appreciate it if we could all pretend Mandos didn't post. Thanks.
Posted by: Stephen Gordon | January 31, 2011 at 06:45 PM
Westslope:
"Once the western-based Conservatives leave the federal coffers in tatters, another Quebec-based coalition will rise up through ashes and restore fiscal sanity in Canada. I want the movie rights."
The Gazette-G&M-Macleans coalition is not ready yet to go back to the traditionnal mode of government that we had from 1867 to 1967. We are still digesting the sad after-effects of the Trudeau experiment of expelling Québec from the coalition and killing the Federal Liberals.
For all the talk, Québec had never had as little influence on governing Canada than under the so-called French-power. It took us some time to understand but not for nothing did we sent them packing in 84. You have to be 48 to be a French-speaking Québécois and have voted for a majority of Liberals in the province. So much for putting Québec in its place...
We tried in 2008. Any parliamentry democracy works by coalition and a government must have the confidence of the House. The TO elite could have seen the Bloc supporting CLP-NDP as recreating the basic mode of government since 1867. But they'd rather have a coup d'état and the destruction of their social model than having Franco with real power...
I renew my invitation. Come back to Québec.
Posted by: Jacques René Giguère | January 31, 2011 at 07:06 PM
*shrug* You can't, you know, talk about why the GST became Lord Voldemort without reflecting on the question of who most vehemently opposed it and why, and why they would continue to do so. It's kind of like talking about the French Revolution without reference to the nobility. But enjoy yourself, Stephen.
Posted by: Mandos | January 31, 2011 at 08:06 PM
Jacques:
The problem is the Bloc has that Sovereigntist plank. Now if they'd renounce it and just become a provincial-rights party, then we could talk. Otherwise no.
I say this as somebody whose family has a cannonball from the Battle of Saint-Eustache, picked up by a family member the morning after the battle.
Posted by: Determinant | January 31, 2011 at 08:30 PM
I don't think I was being coy, but maybe let me be blunter. Academic arguments between economists about what constitutes an 'efficient' tax system are important, valuable and informative to policy makers. Although I'm not an economist, I think I certainly understood the arguments involved.
In 2006, the Conservative Party offered a balanced package of tax cuts that cut all kinds of taxes. I was not involved in the 2008 campaign, but I think there was a pretty good debate about tax policy between the parties in the run up to that election and then during the campaign. It all revolved around the efficiency of the tax system. And if there's a campaign in 2011, it looks like there will again be a pretty good debate about tax policy. We'll see how it all turns out. I trust
As to the issue of the so-called structural deficit. I understand the concept of "structural deficit" but I am not sure I understand what it means in practice. In any case, there was no prospect of our 2006 platform causing a structural deficit when it was drafted, and I do not think the 2006 platform caused the current federal deficit.
Posted by: Ian Brodie | January 31, 2011 at 09:17 PM
Well, no, when you're budgeting for a 6-8 month time frame, as the CPC letters to the ministers indicate, there's no way that even a 2% cut to the GST could have caused a deficit with all the surplus that was left behind.
But gosh if you guys didn't try.
Posted by: Thwim | February 01, 2011 at 01:01 PM
Dterminant:
As long as I have to pay my taxes, obey the Criminal Code and die in Afghan, I should be in the Coalition. No GST, without representation according to wiser heads than me.
and we should spend a few minutes on why they to choose to die in St-Eustache...
Back to GST...
Posted by: Jacques René Giguère | February 01, 2011 at 02:18 PM
Instead of raising the GST as the best way to raise revenue, what about taxing the unimproved value of land? Under economic theory isn't this the most efficient tax? Doesn't it have no deadweight loss?
Posted by: Dean Bagan-Comereau | February 01, 2011 at 05:27 PM
By some combination of law and tradition, property taxes are levied at the municipal level. But yes, the available evidence ranks them up there with - or above - the GST
Posted by: Stephen Gordon | February 01, 2011 at 05:37 PM
Please publish your evidence, Stephen. Property taxes based on value have the downside that they can and do vary widely from ability to pay. When you hold your property for a long period this become significant, due to demand and value for your property, unimproved or not, varying from your income.
It may be "efficient" but it's also highly unfair. This is a real problem since Ontario downloaded welfare costs onto municipalities. Welfare as an income program is far better suited to being paid from income tax. It's a more transparent and fair form wealth redistribution.
Posted by: Determinant | February 01, 2011 at 06:28 PM
"As to the issue of the so-called structural deficit. I understand the concept of "structural deficit" but I am not sure I understand what it means in practice. In any case, there was no prospect of our 2006 platform causing a structural deficit when it was drafted, and I do not think the 2006 platform caused the current federal deficit."
Ah, this certainly brought back memories of a post I wrote in response to the 2006 Conservative platform. If I recall correctly, the title was, "Goodbye Budget Surplus, We Hardly Knew Ya"
But by all means, play the old hoocoodanode card Ian, it's probably the best one you've got in that weak hand.
As far as reality goes, at the time, there was enough concern about the Conservative platform for the 2006 election leading to a structural deficit that Andrew Coyne felt the need to run a post arguing that, "The Grits were earlier trying to claim, on the basis of who know's whose numbers, that the Tories would run a "$12-billion deficit." Even if that were true, which I doubt, that's $12-billion over five years, or a little more than $2-billion a year -- they could fund it out of the contingency reserve."
...and he further elaborated in the comments of my post that, "The damage comes when you run a series of large deficits, such as we did in the 1980s and 90s. I see exactly zero likelihood of that in the Tory platform"
For my part, I was less optimistic, commenting that, "The reasoning why neo-Conservative governments are prone to running large deficits is fairly straightforward. ... tax cuts are probably the only thing that all the Conservative factions agree on
...
Another factor is that Conservatives generally have an anti-government mindset and often believe that government is just some black hole which sucks up money and does nothing. This leads them to believe they can make significant cuts to government and they won't have any impact. Once in power, much like your typical hapless reality show contestant, they realize that governing is harder (and more important) than it looks and they don't end up making the cuts they thought they would (or they do and people end up dying - see Walkerton).
...
But surely, you say, Conservative supporters are fiscally conservative and will turn against their party if it runs deficits?
The practical response is to note that said fiscal conservatives, who can be counted on to scream loud and long if a left-wing government runs a deficit, have historically remained eerily silent in the presence of Conservative deficits."
Sorry to spam the board with my own past remarks, but given Ian's innocent act regarding the 2006 platform and how there was 'no prospect' of it causing a structural deficit, it seemed appropriate.
Posted by: Declan | February 02, 2011 at 01:49 AM
Further to the taxing the unimproved value of land idea... some provinces charge property taxes also, but you're correct that the federal government does not. That could be changed, especially considering the benefits.
As to the argument about whether this is unfair and can vary widely from "ability to pay"... the size of this problem would depend on the size of the tax increase, and whether it was offset by cutting less efficient taxes. Many places also have hardship provisions like the property tax deferrals that are available for seniors.
In terms of fairness, consider that all public services and infrastructure are crystallized in land prices. Think about how much more people will pay to live near a good school, or a rapid transit station, or close to the amenities available downtown. Every time the government builds infrastructure, or population grows, or community life in a neighbourhood improves, owners of land benefit; renters do not, yet both groups pay the income taxes that pay for infrastructure and services. The income taxes paid by the owners of property are given back to them through increased land prices and the rents they can charge, but renters just pay higher rents.
Tax unimproved land values.
Posted by: Dean Bagan-Comereau | February 02, 2011 at 03:14 PM
Taxing the unimproved value of the land?
Henry George proposed it in the XIXth century. Promptly went nowhere. Too many powerful idle speculators.
Posted by: Jacques René Giguère | February 02, 2011 at 04:19 PM