I don't have a problem with paying taxes.
I know that might sound a little weird as I certainly have an issue with some forms of taxation but I recognize taxes afford us the opportunity to have a lifestyle we could not have without them.
After all, taxes are a payment for services rendered.
I pay taxes so that my road gets cleared of snow. I pay taxes so that there is a doctor and hospital available if I need one. I pay taxes so that children can go to school.
But like most people, I don't really want to pay taxes if I don't have to and I certainly don't want to pay taxes for services that are not rendered.
Which brings us to the BC Liberals offering parents of elementary school children $40 per day if school does not resume in September. There are two ways (actually, many more than two ways) that one can look at this promised payment.
The first is that it is a reimbursement for the cost of childcare that parents will incur if their children are not in school. Childcare is typically in this price range. A $40 per day rate translates to about $880 per month.
But our out-of-school childcare system is primarily targeted at pre-school aged children with only a few organizations designed for afterschool care for older kids. Most organizations I am familiar with are well subscribed and do not have room for an influx of kids.
The childcare system will not be able to suddenly absorb the 150,000 or so elementary school aged children that might be without school in September.
A payment of $40 per day will not really help parents find childcare if there is none to be had. Put another way, the law of supply and demand dictates that if demand exceeds supply, prices will rise but at some point no amount of money will help because there will simply be no more spaces.
If this is the BC Liberals way of trying to make the pain a little more palatable, it falls well short of the mark. At best, it will be a small compensation for a large problem.
Indeed, it might actually make some parents angry as it devalues education and the importance of education while dismissing our children.
The other way to look at the $40 is as a return to the taxpaying public money that was not spent. This is a much more intriguing view which perhaps set a dangerous precedent.
A few years back, I had an argument with an acquaintance about paying taxes. His contention was that he shouldn't have to pay for services that he doesn't use, period.
His central theme for the argument was school taxes. Since he didn't have kids in school, he felt he shouldn't have to pay school taxes.
Many people share a similar sense about taxes and would argue that all taxes should be consumption based. If you don't use it, you don't pay for it. Essentially, taxes should be a fee for service.
My former Op-Ed colleague Bruce Strachan and I had many discussions about the fairness or unfairness of consumption taxes. At the time, we employ a mixed system but he felt that it needed to be shifted towards consumption. In many ways, this is exactly what has happened over the past ten years.
Consider that the Provincial Budget is $44.8 billion with only $7.491 billion or 16.72% coming from personal income tax. That is a pretty good deal! After all, we are getting $44.84 billion worth of goods for only $7.491 billion!
However, sales taxes ($5.964 billion), fuel taxes ($936 million), carbon taxes ($1.228 billion), tobacco taxes ($780 million), property taxes ($2.156 billion) and others taxes amount to $12.318 billion are personal taxes and are all consumption taxes.
Adding on $2.271 billion in Medical Services Plan premiums and $3.065 billion for other fees and licenses makes it fairly clear that consumption taxes dominate.
But consumption taxes are based on consuming. If we are not getting the product why should we be paying for it?
Elementary and secondary education accounts of $6.125 billion in the provincial budget. That is $16.8 million per day - based on 365 days in the year. It is much more if you only count the 193 days that school is in session.
Why should we - the taxpayers - not receive all of the money that isn't being spent on education back?
A 10 day strike should mean that there is $168 million to be handed back to every taxpaying British Columbia - or roughly $62 per taxpayer. After all, the services were not rendered.
Why restrict the funds to just those parents with children?
What about everyone else who pay taxes?
Maybe our taxes should only be based on consumption.
