header image
The world according to David Graham

Topics

acva bili chpc columns committee conferences elections environment essays ethi faae foreign foss guelph hansard highways history indu internet leadership legal military money musings newsletter oggo pacp parlchmbr parlcmte politics presentations proc qp radio reform regs rnnr satire secu smem statements tran transit tributes tv unity

Recent entries

  1. Trump will win in 2020 (and keep an eye on 2024)
  2. A podcast with Michael Geist on technology and politics
  3. Next steps
  4. On what electoral reform reforms
  5. 2019 Fall campaign newsletter / infolettre campagne d'automne 2019
  6. 2019 Summer newsletter / infolettre été 2019
  7. 2019-07-15 SECU 171
  8. 2019-06-20 RNNR 140
  9. 2019-06-17 14:14 House intervention / intervention en chambre
  10. 2019-06-17 SECU 169
  11. 2019-06-13 PROC 162
  12. 2019-06-10 SECU 167
  13. 2019-06-06 PROC 160
  14. 2019-06-06 INDU 167
  15. 2019-06-05 23:27 House intervention / intervention en chambre
  16. 2019-06-05 15:11 House intervention / intervention en chambre
  17. 2019-06-04 INDU 166
  18. 2019-06-03 SECU 166
  19. 2019 June newsletter / infolettre juin 2019
  20. 2019-05-30 RNNR 137
  21. 2019-05-30 PROC 158
  22. 2019-05-30 INDU 165
  23. 2019-05-29 SECU 165
  24. 2019-05-29 ETHI 155
  25. 2019-05-28 ETHI 154
  26. 2019-05-28 ETHI 153
  27. 2019-05-27 ETHI 151
  28. 2019-05-27 SECU 164
  29. 2019-05-17 10:59 House intervention / intervention en chambre
  30. 2019-05-16 ETHI 150
  31. older entries...

Natural resources, equalization, and the so-called fiscal imbalance

CBC is reporting that an "expert panel" is recommending that 50% of non-renewable natural resources revenues be included in the national equalization program. I don't get why any of it shouldn't be.

The purpose of equalization is to put all provinces on a relatively even fiscal keel. It has a hint of communist idealism at its root: from each (province) according to its ability, to each (province) according to its necessity.

Why, therefore, is natural resource revenue, even if from non-renewable resources, even a question?

Revenue is revenue. It boosts the affected local economies, and as long as it does, it should be included in any formula based on those economies. It makes no sense that just because a province has a temporary financial high (though the oil-based resources are not exactly expected to dry up next spring, so how temporary is it, anyway?) thanks to natural resources that it should be declared superfluous.

How would those same governments react if I told them that this year I made an extra hundred thousand dollars, and next year I expect to, too, but eventually I will retire, and because I won't make that kind of money forever, I should not have to pay taxes on it? My bet is there would be a "notice of reassesment" in my mailbox telling me that I owe tax on that difference within a couple of weeks.

Why should additional provincial revenues be any different? Equalisation seems to, in essence, be income tax for provinces, where provinces get a tax refund based on their income and outgo at the end of the fiscal year.

I believe that there is indeed a fiscal imbalance, but that it is between have and have-not provinces, not between the provinces and the federal government.

Posted at 18:32 on June 05, 2006

This entry has been archived. Comments can no longer be posted.

Canada under attack? | money politics | Oops, the budget passed

(RSS) Website generating code and content © 2006-2020 David Graham <david@davidgraham.ca>, unless otherwise noted. All rights reserved. Comments are © their respective authors.