Warning:
Tax cuts may be dangerous to your health
By Dennis Howlett, Executive Director, National Anti-Poverty Organization
May 5, 2006
Too good to be true
We should be suspicious of offers that are too good to be true. The
recent Conservative budget is a case in point. Thousands of dollars in
“tax credits” would seem to be a good thing. But on careful examination,
Canadians will discover that not only do they shrink to being just a few
hundred dollars in after-tax dollars saved, they also come with all kinds
of unwanted side effects. The tax cut budget package should have come
with a warning.
Here is the small print you should read:
The main thrust of the Conservative government’s budget was tax cuts
- even more then they promised during the election. In addition to the
1% GST reduction, the Conservatives have kept many of the Liberal income
tax cuts and added other tax cuts, including generous corporate income
tax cuts.
Tax cuts were also doled out to students for university textbooks, for
children’s fitness and for public transit passes. In all, there were 28
tax cuts in the budget. Three out of every four dollars of the available
$37.2 billion in surpluses over the next two years will go to tax cuts
or paying down the debt. There was very little new program spending apart
from the military, which got $5.3 billion on top of the generous increases
announced by the Liberal government.
But tax cuts are not the best way to address problems of the high cots
of post secondary education, increased incidence of obesity among children
or the threat of climate change. Nor do they do anything to reduce poverty.
Program spending to reduce tuition costs, funding for health education
and recreation facilities and programs, and investment in public transit
and energy retrofits of houses are much more cost effective and targeted
ways to deal with these problems. Poor people get much more out of government
programs such as childcare, income support and social services then they
do from tax cuts.
Tax cuts are bad news for the poor
The rich always get more from tax cuts then the poor. Even by the government’s
own admission the tax cuts in their budget provide less then $100 a year
for families with incomes of less then $15,000 and over $1200 for families
getting over $100,000 a year. (average tax savings for 2007) The richest
families will get twelve times as much as the poorest families.
Tax incentive based mechanisms have proven to be a very ineffective
way to deliver social programs. The best examples are day care and affordable
housing tax incentives used by the Harris government in Ontario, which
produced hardly any day care spaces or new affordable housing units. Tax
credits for public transit passes are a very expensive way to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions. The same amount of money invested in public transit infrastructure
or invested in energy conservation retrofits for houses of low-income
families (something that was cut by the Conservatives in this budget)
will deliver a much greater bang for your buck.
- Tax credits don’t help if you don’t pay taxes
The poorest Canadians, including many students, who don’t have enough
income to have to pay taxes will get no benefit at all from the tax credits
for textbooks, public transit passes or children’s fitness programs. This
is because they are non-refundable, meaning they can be deducted from
what you have to pay in taxes but if you don’t pay taxes you don’t get
anything.
The most serious problem with tax cuts is that they reduce amount of
money governments can raise and therefore the funds they have available
to spend on government programs. Because of past budget surpluses, the
impact of Conservative tax cuts will not be felt immediately. But a few
years down the road, or even sooner if interest rates go up, the government
will be facing serious shortfalls in revenues and this will provide the
pretext for major and painful cuts in spending on programs such as funding
for welfare and post secondary education.
The goal of this government is to reduce the role of the federal government
and let the provinces and the private businesses take up the slack. Most
Canadians don’t want more privatization of health care, education and
other social services. Nor do they want the federal government to abdicate
its leadership role in tackling social problems such as homelessness,
child and family poverty or environmental issues such as climate change.
Women in particular will be hard hit by the withdrawal of the federal
state in the financing and provision of social programs and services,
especially women-led single parent families. These programs are essential
to the achievement of women’s equality. However, tax cuts are much more
popular. So they are being used as the Trojan horse to achieve policy
objectives that would be opposed by most Canadians.
But Canadians should not be fooled by a few more hundred dollars in
their pockets if this comes at the price of more homelessness, environmental
degradation, lack of daycare spaces and poorer health and social programs.
Specific Impacts for Low Income Canadians
“One-time” investment in affordable housing
The budget did include $ 1.4 billion for affordable housing from the
NDP budget deal passed by the last parliament but not allocated. While
NAPO is relieved this hard won money was not lost, even if it has shrunk
from $1.6 billion, building much needed social housing is a long-term
task. It takes several years to plan and build social housing projects
and there is a huge back-log of 1.5 million Canadian households in core
housing need as a result of many years of government inaction. Finance
Minister Flaherty’s description of this money as a “ one-time investment
to increase the supply of affordable housing in our cities” does not bode
well for what he will do for housing in future budgets.
There was no word either about the extension of the federal homelessness
and housing rehabilitation programs (which are due to expire this year).
No money for childcare program
One of the biggest disappointments in this budget was the notice served
to provinces that funds for childcare will be cut after this year. The
establishment of the beginnings of a national early learning and child
care program was an important step forward, particularly for poor and
sole parent families where the lack of quality, affordable child care
is a major barrier to employment, and now it looks as though this may
be lost.
The Universal Child Care Benefit (the new name for what was being called
the Choice in Child care Allowance) that will provide a taxable benefit
of up to $100 a month per child (in many cases a lot less) is no substitute
for a national child care program. While the Finance Minister commended
provinces that said they will not claw-back this benefit from families
receiving social assistance. But there is no guarantee that this benefit
will not be clawed-back from some of the poorest families in those provinces
that have not made this promise. Bowing to pressure from NAPO and others,
the government did say income from the Universal Child Care Benefit will
not affect federal income-tested benefits such as the Child Tax Benefit
and Child Benefit Supplement. But making it a taxable benefit for the
parent with the lower income means couples with one income will get to
keep more of the benefit than a working single parent who has greater
need for child care. It would have been much better to deliver this new
benefit as part of the Child Tax Benefit as NAPO recommended.
Funds for Aboriginal Health and Poverty Reduction Disappear
Another shocking development was the absence of any funds to implement
the Kelowna Accord negotiated between First Nations and federal and provincial
governments to address the health, housing, water and social and economic
infrastructure needs of Aboriginal peoples. Of the $5 billion dollar commitment
made at that time less then 10% appeared in this budget to address these
needs. The government should not be surprised if there are more blockades
and unrest in Aboriginal communities this summer.
We will pay for tax cuts later
Apart from the money for social housing, this federal budget was a disaster
for low income Canadians. But even more ominous is that the tax cuts introduced
will likely mean even worse budgets for the poor in the future.
|