Main menu:

History of RPE Thought

Posts by Tag

RSS New from the CCPA

  • Imagine a Winnipeg...2018 Alternative Municipal Budget June 18, 2018
    Climate change; stagnant global economic growth; political polarization; growing inequality.  Our city finds itself dealing with all these issues, and more at once. The 2018 Alternative Municipal Budget (AMB) is a community response that shows how the city can deal with all these issues and balance the budget.
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Why would a boom town need charity? Inequities in Saskatchewan’s oil boom and bust May 23, 2018
    When we think of a “boomtown,” we often imagine a formerly sleepy rural town suddenly awash in wealth and economic expansion. It might surprise some to learn that for many municipalities in oil-producing regions in Saskatchewan, the costs of servicing the oil boom can outweigh the benefits. A Prairie Patchwork: Reliance on Oil Industry Philanthropy […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • CCPA's National Office has moved! May 11, 2018
      The week of May 1st, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives' National Office moved to 141 Laurier Ave W, Suite 1000, Ottawa ON, K1P 5J2. Please note that our phone, fax and general e-mail will remain the same: Telephone: 613-563-1341 | Fax: 613-233-1458 | Email: ccpa@policyalternatives.ca  
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • What are Canada’s energy options in a carbon-constrained world? May 1, 2018
    Canada faces some very difficult choices in maintaining energy security while meeting emissions reduction targets.  A new study by veteran earth scientist David Hughes—published through the Corporate Mapping Project, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and the Parkland Institute—is a comprehensive assessment of Canada’s energy systems in light of the need to maintain energy security and […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • The 2018 Living Wage for Metro Vancouver April 25, 2018
    The cost of raising a family in British Columbia increased slightly from 2017 to 2018. A $20.91 hourly wage is needed to cover the costs of raising a family in Metro Vancouver, up from $20.61 per hour in 2017 due to soaring housing costs. This is the hourly wage that two working parents with two young children […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
Progressive Bloggers

Meta

Recent Blog Posts

Posts by Author

Recent Blog Comments

The Progressive Economics Forum

BC’s revenue negative carbon tax

BC’s carbon tax was supposed to be “revenue neutral”, meaning all carbon tax revenue would be “recycled” to British Columbians through personal income tax cuts, corporate income tax cuts and a low-income credit. When the 2008 budget launched the carbon tax, we were provided with a forecast that had revenues precisely match recycling through tax cuts and credits, with about one-third of revenues going to each of PIT cuts, CIT cuts and the low-income credit.

But recent budgets have shown a carbon tax deficit: tax cuts have completely swamped carbon tax revenues. While some were concerned that the carbon tax would be a “tax grab”, instead we are a carbon tax is that is revenue negative not revenue neutral.

In the tax’s first year, the result is not too bad: projected revenues of $338 million came in much less than expected at $306 million, due to the recession the government completely failed to see coming. But for the same reason, tax revenues fell and so did the value of the personal and corporate tax cuts, at $313 million. This modest shortfall is arguably within the margin of error given that this was a brand new tax.

But the carbon tax deficit swelled in 2009/10. Carbon tax revenues were $542 million, while tax cuts and credits cost $767 million, a deficit of $225 million on the carbon account (detailed on p. 105 of the 2010 budget plan). For a government concerned about its deficit, and that has imposed massive spending restraint on the public sector, a commitment to tax cuts that far exceed carbon tax revenues is bizarre. One can make the argument that tax cuts should be part of a stimulative fiscal policy (although their effectiveness is generally weak), but that is a very different from the rationale for a revenue neutral carbon tax.

Looking forward, budget projections show that the trend of deficits on the carbon account continues for the duration of the three-year fiscal plan. In response, the budget does not scale back tax cuts. The general corporate income tax rate having fallen from 12% in the first half of 2008 to 10.5% in 2010, will drop another half-point to 10% in 2011. And it is not like BC businesses have not already received tax cuts (hello, HST).

Corporate tax cuts are now absorbing the lion’s share of carbon tax revenues. In 2010/11, they will be equivalent to 57% of carbon tax revenues, compared to one-third in 2008/09. Cutting corporate taxes is the worst possible way of using carbon tax revenues. This is because of the intense concentration of ownership of capital at the top of the income distribution (when you hear corporate tax cuts think upper-income tax cuts), and also because shareholders outside BC, who pay no carbon tax, benefit from corporate tax cuts. While it might make sense to provide tax credits for investments in energy efficiency, corporate tax cuts essentially reward the worst offenders when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions.

A final note: the 2010 budget provides for an increase in the low-income credit as of July 2011 (in a previous post I mistakenly reported this as occurring in 2010) to $115.50 per adult and $34.50 per child. That will represent an increase of 15.5% in the value of the credit since the carbon tax was introduced in July 2008. Meanwhile the tax itself will be 150% higher as of July 2011. The result is an increasingly regressive carbon tax and revenue recycling regime.

Enjoy and share:

Comments

Comment from travis fast
Time: September 22, 2010, 12:54 pm

Ahem…So flat regressive taxes are not a sufficient condition for a progressive Swedish style welfare state?

Comment from Rod Smelser
Time: September 27, 2010, 9:07 pm

I wonder if Prof Jaccard or his group at SFU have been asked by the Govt of BC to run any simulations on the future course of this policy?

Write a comment





Related articles