Calgary Sun
Published: Tuesday, June 18, 2002

Taxes that are 'good' for us

With the three-ring parliamentary circus of "sponsorgate," the PMs ethics-shmethics package and the Liberal party's civil war set to wind down with this week's anticipated recess of Parliament for the summer, Canadians can finally turn their attention to cottages, barbeques and other important pursuits.

But should they decide to think of Ottawa and politics, the future of taxation (Think: Budget 2003) is worth considering. In short, this future will consist of green peas and alfalfa sprouts, or any other vegetable mom forced us to gulp down as a kids. And as we dutifully swallowed and grimaced in agony, mom would always say, "don't make that face, it's good for you."

Think back to the last federal budget. The feds imposed a new $12 one-way and $24 round-trip flying tax that took effect on, how appropriate, April Fool's day. With flight volumes already back to pre-Sept. 11 levels, experts are now predicting that this tax will rake in at least $3 billion annually instead of the $2.2 billion offered up in the budget tables.

This tax haul will flow directly into general revenues with no assurances that it will be spent on its stated purpose. But former federal Finance Minister Paul Martin assured that this flying tax was "good for us."

Here's another example: In 1997, the B.C. government introduced a 15%
'surcharge' on motor vehicle fines to finance a new 'Neurotrauma Fund'
dedicated to research and prevention programs of spinal cord and brain injuries. The government even managed an appearance by man-in-motion Rick Hansen at the press conference to endorse the initiative.

As it turns out, 15% of $66-million that the tax nets amounts to a cool $10-million. But the victims of neurotrauma see less than a quarter of it. The government only transfers $2-million to the fund annually, pocketing the remainder.

The Cole's Notes version of the HOW TO IMPLEMENT NEW TAXES memo now
circulating amongst finance officials across the country (in both official languages) goes something like this:

First, link any new tax measure to a specific cause that is basically immune from criticism. Second, never call the new measure a tax, instead obfuscate by invoking terms such as 'security fee', 'user pay', and/or 'dedicated levy'. Finally, if anyone dares to criticize the tax, boldly and indignantly wrap yourself in the flag of public good and accuse them of being against the specific cause that is immune from criticism.

Tobacco tax hikes follow the points in the aforementioned tax hike memo to a tee, but there is no guarantee whatsoever that these new revenues will actually go into health care.

And as health care reform remains topical, will we see more
recommendations (like those being talked about in Nova Scotia) to tax junk foods for let's say a 'cardio-fund' to combat heart disease?

Or how about municipal fines for these mean folks who don't hold elevator doors open for you as you race through the lobby of your office building? It could be called the "kindness levy."

So there you have it -- broccoli and brussel sprouts, the future of taxation.