Alberta Fitness Tax Credit...

[TangerZ]

Hi guys, the last time the Alberta Fitness Tax Credit was discussed on CP at length was in mid to late 2008, when the bill was first sponsored to have a tax credit for those paying to stay fit. I recently bought a membership for my father at a local gym, and was wondering what had transpired out of the whole Fitness Tax Credit. Has anyone followed up on this beyond when it was passed as legislation? The last I had read on it, the government had promulgated that they did not know when the tax credit would take effect, nor had they created a comprehensive list of activities that would be applicable towards a tax credit. There was concern at the time of abuse of the tax credit, and they wanted to make sure it would be applied as per the spirit of the legislation. I'm assuming, since I haven't heard much buzz around this at tax time, that it would be for the year ahead, but then shouldn't they give people a head start on buying gym memberships if that's to be the case. Hopefully it doesn't take until the 2011 tax season. At any rate, anyone informed on this?

[TibHockeyPlayer]

Their not done making changes.

[DESS]

Originally Posted by TangerZ

Hi guys, the last time the Alberta Fitness Tax Credit was discussed on CP at length was in mid to late 2008, when the bill was first sponsored to have a tax credit for those paying to stay fit. I recently bought a membership for my father at a local gym, and was wondering what had transpired out of the whole Fitness Tax Credit. Has anyone followed up on this beyond when it was passed as legislation? The last I had read on it, the government had promulgated that they did not know when the tax credit would take effect, nor had they created a comprehensive list of activities that would be applicable towards a tax credit. There was concern at the time of abuse of the tax credit, and they wanted to make sure it would be applied as per the spirit of the legislation. I'm assuming, since I haven't heard much buzz around this at tax time, that it would be for the year ahead, but then shouldn't they give people a head start on buying gym memberships if that's to be the case. Hopefully it doesn't take until the 2011 tax season. At any rate, anyone informed on this?

Quick poll - who knows what "promulgated" means without having to look it up? I didn't. Click thanks on my post if you have never heard that word in your life, just so I know I'm not a complete idiot. lol

Re: your post, I hope this goes through. The core idea is certainly a good one.

[Wookie]

I thought it was known that tax dollars for people to stay healthy is actually more costly? Healthy people live longer and recover from more ailments than unhealthy people who die more quickly thus being a longer more drawn out strain on our health care system.

Additionally padding the balance sheets of slimy WHC/Golds gyms and their sales staff is a waste of my Tax Dollars (and I've already spent over $600) on exercise related expenses this year.

[Locke]

As an accountant I'm going to wade into this one carefully.

As I understand, and its not totally clear yet, this will work in much of the same capacity as the Child Fitness Tax Credit.

So fees for sports or equipment or things of that nature are likely fine, but theres no certainty that they'll be allowing Gym memberships. In my own opinion, I doubt it, but you never know because its a provincial thing.

[Wookie]

And to add to that. I don't want to see tax dollars going to lazy people who buy/pay for stuff that they never use. Wether that be gym membership/equipment/fees.

[DESS]

Originally Posted by Wookie

I thought it was known that tax dollars for people to stay healthy is actually more costly? Healthy people live longer and recover from more ailments than unhealthy people who die more quickly thus being a longer more drawn out strain on our health care system.

Additionally padding the balance sheets of slimy WHC/Golds gyms and their sales staff is a waste of my Tax Dollars (and I've already spent over $600) on exercise related expenses this year.

Pardon me for being skeptical, but do you have any links to support your claim that healthy people cost the system more? It seems outlandish, frankly.

[JohnnyFlame]

Originally Posted by Locke

As an accountant I'm going to wade into this one carefully.

As I understand, and its not totally clear yet, this will work in much of the same capacity as the Child Fitness Tax Credit.

So fees for sports or equipment or things of that nature are likely fine, but theres no certainty that they'll be allowing Gym memberships. In my own opinion, I doubt it, but you never know because its a provincial thing.

I am a huge fan of the Child Fitness Tax Credit and if it's going to work along the same lines then the sooner the better.

[Locke]

I like the idea of a fitness tax credit personally, as long as only certain things are allowable.

I spend in the neighborhood of $2K a year on sports fees alone, not including things like new cleats/shoes, money thrown in for practices and uniforms and all the rest of that jazz so a little break here and there is hugely appreciated by me.

Just remember though, this is going to be a credit, so its not like its going to cover those spring softball fees or anything. And I dont believe that Gym memberships should be included. Companies were just starting to make progress in taking care of that themselves, it seems like a waste for the government to step in and do it now. Not o mention the sheer volume of abuse will make me sick at tax time.

[JohnnyFlame]

Yep it adds up. Even wheeling around to Second Chance Sports and the like and hand me downs and looking for every other angle the dollars just rack up. Even if you work a casino or two to get a break the fees are still lots of cash.

If the same could be done for adults then I see it as a very positive step. Passes to the City pools/facilities etc. Any encouragment to get out and get fit with some help financially is good.

[TangerZ]

Any word on the timeline, as to when it's going to be implemented folks? I'm a little selfish here Locke, but I'm hoping for my dad and I, that we get the credit for gym memberships

[MoneyGuy]

I thought gym memberships are eligible.

[Wookie]

Originally Posted by DESS

Pardon me for being skeptical, but do you have any links to support your claim that healthy people cost the system more? It seems outlandish, frankly.

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/per...1549-1676&ct=1
You can search for the pulication yourself

There are a lot of good reasons for people to lose weight and stop smoking — but saving money on lifetime health care costs isn't one of them, according to a study out of the Netherlands.
The researchers found that healthy people cost governments more in the long run because they live years longer: an average of 4.5 years longer than people who are obese, and seven years longer than smokers.
Economist Pieter van Baal, who led the study for the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, talks with Melissa Block about the counter-intuitive idea that a healthy lifestyle costs more in terms of health care.
Van Baal's study, "Lifetime Medical Costs of Obesity: Prevention No Cure for Increasing Health Expenditure," was published Monday in the online journal

The researchers found that from age 20 to 56, obese people racked up the most expensive health costs. But because both the smokers and the obese people died sooner than the healthy group, it cost less to treat them in the long run.
On average, healthy people lived 84 years. Smokers lived about 77 years, and obese people lived about 80 years. Smokers and obese people tended to have more heart disease than the healthy people.
Cancer incidence, except for lung cancer, was the same in all three groups. Obese people had the most diabetes, and healthy people had the most strokes. Ultimately, the thin and healthy group cost the most, about $417,000, from age 20 on.
The cost of care for obese people was $371,000, and for smokers, about $326,000.
The results counter the common perception that preventing obesity will save health systems worldwide millions of dollars.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...thy_peopl.html

Rapidly rising prices for health care also add to the expense of moving big-ticket medical procedures into later years, explains Garson, a cardiologist. "In today's world, where the rate of medical care inflation is twice the rate of regular inflation, anything done 10 years from now is, in real dollars, 25 percent more expensive."
There are two ways to deal with that problem, according to Garson. Get medical costs down, and "keep people as healthy as possible as long as possible so that they don't spend as much money being sick."
The best kind of aging, he says, is to "have early old age last as long as possible and late old age last 15 minutes."
Yes, preventive care is a good thing because a long and healthy life is a good thing. We shouldn't lose sight of that big picture. But let's not deceive ourselves into believing that wellness programs can reduce medical spending over the long haul. That may come off as an attractive selling point for a health-care plan, but it's not so.

http://community.changenow4health.co...-lots-of-money

Medical economists agree that cancer screenings and gym classes can lead to physical well-being and longer lives. But in the interests of honest accounting, they add that prevention does not reduce overall health-care spending. On the contrary.
Let's put it bluntly: Longer lives cost more money. Those who make it to 90 thanks to exercise and six daily servings of vegetables are more likely to suffer the expensive ravages of old age. Everyone dies of something.
So he who avoids a fatal heart attack at 70 is more at risk of cancer at 80. Those extra 10 years can mean extra CT scans, hip replacements and physical therapy, even for those in relative good health.

I'm at work, so don't expect much.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by TangerZ

Any word on the timeline, as to when it's going to be implemented folks? I'm a little selfish here Locke, but I'm hoping for my dad and I, that we get the credit for gym memberships

As I understand it should be implemented for 2009, assuming everything passes.

[FlamesKickAss]

how would that effect a companies credit given to employees?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by FlamesKickAss

how would that effect a companies credit given to employees?

It shouldnt affect it at all. Corporate credit and government credit are totally separate. Unless your company changes it's policies.

[Envitro]

So wait... I'm able to get a credit for the new hockey equipment I bought last year?

Is this now accepted and I can claim this for 2008?

[Julio]

I don't believe you will be able to claim this for last year...tax rates, deductions and such are already in place.

It does look like (at least according to the author of the bill) that club memberships will be included:

"It was a tough battle, but we won it: 24-20…my Private Member’s Bill: “the Physical Activity/Income Tax Amendment Act 2008” was recently given Royal Assent! Once the bill is proclaimed, you--& every member of your family—of any age--will be able to claim up to a $500 tax credit—every year--if you participate in any ongoing
physical activity such as regularly attending a health or yoga club, or playing organized sports of all sorts. (Final details are pending…please stay tuned.) I designed this bill to be positive & proactive; to focus on promoting wellness rather than reacting to sickness; & to give us all a break on our health care costs…so thanks to all of you
who vociferously supported the cause! <Private Members Bills are seldom passed; but thankfully, going back to my “Smoke-Free Places Act 2004”, I have brought at least 2 pieces of legislation forward—every year…>"
http://www.daverodney.ca/pdfs/newsletter_jan09.pdf

[goeagles]

All for not. The credit has been cut.

[Ozy_Flame]

It's done like dinner. A luxury the province can't afford right now.