Think-tank supports flat tax

Published Monday January 5th, 2009

Review | Flat tax will 'help attract workers'

A1

Switching to a flat 10 per cent personal income tax would give New Brunswick a huge edge when it comes to attracting skilled workers, says Charles Cirtwill, executive vice-president of the Atlantic Institute of Market Studies.

"The upsides are a lot better than the downsides, I think, when you look at a 10 per cent flat tax," he said.

"You just look at the competitive advantage that is going to give you versus all the other jurisdictions in Canada, let alone North America and the rest of the world," said Cirtwill.

In December, the final report of the Select Committee on Tax Review recommended that the government introduce a flat 10 per cent personal income tax and increase the non-refundable basic personal deduction and spousal deduction to $12,000.

"The implementation of a flat tax provides the province with the opportunity to depart from the status quo and simplify the administration of our tax system," stated the report.

"It was the option favoured by the most respondents and would give New Brunswick one of the lowest overall personal income tax rates in Canada," said the report.

A one-income New Brunswick family with two children earning $40,000 a year would see its provincial taxes fall from $2,501 a year to $700 a year, a savings of 72 per cent.

Cirtwill said with a flat rate of 10 per cent in New Brunswick, some people here would be paying half the provincial tax that they would pay in Nova Scotia.

"Only Alberta has a 10 per cent rate in Canada right now," he said.

Some jurisdictions in the United States are talking about it, he said, but have not implemented it.

Cirtwill said professionals earning more than $40,000 a year will decide where in Canada to live partially based on the provincial tax rate.

"AIMS itself experienced that just a year or so ago," he said. "We had offered a job to somebody in Ontario to come to Nova Scotia.

"When he did the math, although we were paying him more, he would take home less so he declined the job."

Cirtwill said every province is competing for highly trained people making $40,000 or more a year.

"Those are the folks that have the most mobile jobs," he said. "They are in the information economy, in the financial sector, they are the engineers."

Cirtwill said the downside to the flat tax cited by its opponents is whether it's progressive enough.

The idea behind a progressive tax regime is that those who earn more should pay more. Under the current system, there are four tax rates and the more you earn, the higher a percentage of your income you pay in tax.

But Cirtwill said that criticism of the flat tax ignores the basic math: with a flat tax the more you earn the more you pay.

For example, someone making $140,000 a year would pay $13,724 annually if there is a provincial flat tax of 10 per cent compared to $45 paid by someone who earns $15,000 a year.

But critics of the flat tax point out that individuals earning $140,000 annually would have paid $19,912 under the current tax system.

That high income earner will save $6,188 or 31 per cent under the flat tax. The person earning $15,000 will save only $20 or 30.8 per cent.

The total cost to the province of implementing the personal flat tax is $415 million a year.

Not surprisingly, the report found people like the idea of paying less tax.

"Respondents agreed that this offers New Brunswickers more freedom to decide how to spend or invest," stated the report.

Cirtwill said people also agree that the higher a government makes the basic personal exemption, the better off the people on the low end of the income spectrum are going to be.

That's why increasing the personal exemption from about $7,000 to $12,000, and over time even higher, is the best tool for combating poverty, he said.

One area Cirtwill wants to hear more about is if the proposed changes will eliminate other exemptions in the tax code.

"That is something they need to specify as they go forward," he said.

But that's more important on the business side than the personal side because the business side has more exemptions, he said.

Cirtwill dismissed the suggestion in the report that if a flat tax comes into effect, New Brunswickers won't need professional help preparing their tax returns. He said accountants shouldn't worry about losing their jobs.

"Remember, you are dealing with both the provincial and the federal tax structure," he said.

The provincial government is expected to respond to the idea of a flat tax in its spring budget.

Disabled

Commenting has been disabled for this item. Existing comments appear below but you may not add a new comment at this time.

Comments (5)

All comments are subject to the site Terms of Use. For a full commenting tutorial click here.

Our editorial team relies on filtering technology and our visitor community to identify inappropriate comments. In the event that a site user has submitted offensive content that has evaded our filter, please select the option to Flag As Inappropriate presented within the comment. Thank you for helping to keep this site clean.

So does this mean they are reconsidering what will be introduced "first" this coming budget? I thought the corporate cuts were a done deal? It would be far more benefit to consumers to have the PERSONAL tax cuts be the first thing introduced, if they will only do one tax change at a time.
10
Thumbs Up
3
Thumbs Down
JustRight OfCenter, Fredericton area on 05/01/09 08:46:52 AM AST
I think this is a fabulous idea. If the people that are making money save on taxes, they will have more discretionary income. If they have more money to spend, they will spend it and that will in turn create more jobs!! Also, by being able to attract more doctors, nurses, engineers, etc. it will boost the economy in New Brunswick - yet again, creating more jobs. It's win win!

Now to wait and see if the provincial government actually moves ahead with this... Hopefully they aren't teasing us with an idea that will never be implemented.
14
Thumbs Up
3
Thumbs Down
J M, Fredericton on 05/01/09 03:08:41 PM AST
I agree with this proposal if it is as the examples have shown. It will serve to do the following:

Reduce government overhead on taxation.

Put more money in the hands of the public/consumer. This in turn puts more money in the economy.

Reduce the immediate need for some employers to have to be as aggressive with gross pay. Net pay is always where it really matters and the more competitive that is without having to increase gross pay, the more competitive the employer (Or Government dept) can be.

Get the current government reelected :)

As to the comment about retraining...

That only works if they are willing or able to train and fill the positions needed. Are you saying that a woodsman should be a cardiac surgeon or a trauma nurse? Seriously. You have to think about the broader implications. Like how long that will take. Those jobs are needed to be filled NOW. Not 2 or 4 or 6 years from now.
8
Thumbs Up
0
Thumbs Down
Just a Person, Freddy Area on 05/01/09 03:38:43 PM AST
Asking Citwell and his institute their opinion on taxes is like asking Satan how he feels about sin and heat. This is ridiculous. This organization and their sister group the Fraser Insitute exist soley to rail against government and taxes. Government bad, private sector great. That's their mantra. This is a phoney article. If you are going to write an article and then only seek opinion that supports what your initial premise is than that is phoney journalism. What empirical evidence does Citwell have that supports his thesis? Various US governments (Democratic and Republican) have been cutting taxes for years so if that lead to a "virtuous economic cycle" (Alan Greenspan, who like Citwell and company are Ann Rand propents, has been widely discredited)we'd be living in economic Nirvana, not on the brink of an ecomomic depression.
4
Thumbs Up
1
Thumbs Down
Prop Rep, Hard Times on 05/01/09 05:49:23 PM AST
If the taxes are cut to that degree, it will cause immigration on a long term level and it could even be rapid at first. If this happens, then there will be more people in the province to pay taxes.

As nice as it is to have services in the social oriented world we have in Canada you simply cannot just tax more when you need more money. You need to find a balance and sometimes cuts are needed to spur longer term and sustainable growth.

I am not at all concerned about a tax cost of $415 M but I AM concerned about not getting services now AND paying out the butt for them still.

This province has had basically no growth in 40 years and needs to try something totally new. If this is it, then I for one welcome it as there has been no benefit to everything that has been tried before. Taxes were put WAY up and there was no benefit so what harm is there in reducing taxes???
4
Thumbs Up
0
Thumbs Down
Just a Person, Freddy Area on 05/01/09 06:08:39 PM AST
Advertisement
Advertisement

Search Articles