BC Election - May 9th, 2017

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

If only there was a sensible middle to govern with a balance of both.

I mean I think this is the problem. Have the Liberals done an acceptable job with the economy? Probably. The problem is that we're well past the due date of investing in infrastructure and social services and they're still trying to put out budgets that are focused on tax cuts. It sucks that we don't have a happy medium between "spend like drunken sailors" and "let's pretend the social problems aren't happening."

[Flash Walken]

I take umbrage with the position that the BC Liberals have effectively managed the economy, as a significant portion of their economic 'success' is tied directly to the mismanagement of the Vancouver housing industry. When manufacturing, mining, energy extraction, forestry and even construction are either in decline or at similar levels as they were 20 years ago, I don't think you can make a credible argument for economic stewardship. Basically the only industry in the province that has seen substantial growth under 15 years of BC Liberal policies has been the real estate sector which employs just a tiny fraction of the province.

At least in Alberta, when they go all in on energy, it employs a significant portion of the province. Not so in BC, but the government has gone all in anyway.

This is no different than an Alberta government that props itself up on ludicrous commodity prices. Eventually the bottom is going to drop out. BC Residents are now carrying twice the personal debt load they did in the mid 90s. This reflects overall trends in Canada but is stark in BC due to the relative lack of high incomes as compared to Alberta.

These are policy decisions:

On Thursday, the provincial government announced it had raked in $2.2 billion in revenue from the property transfer tax and the new 15 per cent tax on foreign buyers of Metro Vancouver homes.

That’s a billion dollars more than the government had projected.

That enormous windfall caused Liberal MLAs to break out into a spontaneous conga line through the legislature. Finance Minister Mike de Jong was forecasting a surplus of $1.94 billion, up from an earlier projection of $264 million. He then announced that $500 million from the property tax would fund a housing affordability program and another $400 million would go into the B.C. prosperity fund “as a legacy for future generations,” he said.

And this, for the cherry on top:

The surplus allowed the government to scrap a planned four per cent increase in medical service plan premiums. It wasn’t as tasty a treat as an announcement to revamp or scrap the loathsome MSP entirely would have been. But it did make the medicine go down easier.

Overall, the windfall made B.C. the brightest light on the country’s economic horizon. And those dire predictions of house-impoverished millennials fleeing Metro Vancouver and B.C. for cheaper house prices? It hasn’t happened. Net inter-provincial immigration has increased year over year for the last three years. You go where the work is.

So, good news all around.

But: De Jong’s figures showed just how stark B.C.’s economic dependence on real estate has become. Real estate-related taxes are now the government’s single largest revenue generator. They not only outstripped the $1.2 billion gambling brings in — which is pernicious enough — but they also surpassed the tax revenue, individually, from forestry, mining, natural gas and all other resource industries. Only when you combine the tax revenue from those resource industries do they bring in more than real estate, and just by a few decimal points.

None of this takes into account the economic spin-offs that a hot real estate market generates. An angry public may chafe at the rising unaffordability of the market, and they may rightly grow livid at the influx of laundered monies, tax cheats and real estate scammers our hapless enforcement agencies have proven either too inept or too understaffed to catch.

But that hot market also employs law-abiding builders, lawyers, renovators, car salesmen, airline employees, retailers, etc. Those jobs can’t be ignored. Real estate’s reach in this province, and in this government’s bottom line, is much longer than just a matter of tax revenue. The danger is not just that real estate has become a windfall for us: The danger is we have become dependent on it.

http://vancouversun.com/opinion/colu...on-real-estate

The never-ending anger toward real estate in Vancouver can be very intense sometimes. For first-time buyers, getting priced out of the market brings with it a range of emotions and a never-ending gamut of blame. Blame the foreigners! Blame the speculators! Blame real-estate agents! Blame the City of Vancouver! Blame Christy Clark! Blame the rich! Blame the poor! One thing that seems to be ignored in the discussion is that B.C. real estate owners are the most taxpayer subsidized in all of Canada.

And it’s not even close.

Let’s start with the Home Owner Grant. Every January there is a media storm wondering how much the government will change the exemption to. You know why this is big news every year? It’s because this is a component for a lot of homeowners trying to decide whether or not they sell their property or keep it. So every year the B.C. taxpayer pays some of its citizens $570 toward their property taxes, whereas in an unsubsidized market these owners could be inclined to sell. In a market where the lack of supply is often argued as a reason for high prices, the provincial government puts an unwarranted restraint on the property market’s natural supply of listings with this program.

Yes, some homeowners might be forced to sell their properties and that is a horrible thing when someone is in that situation. That’s also how it plays out in every other real estate market in Canada, North America and the rest of the world. And let’s not forget that the owner could, in theory, be sitting on $1.6 million worth of real estate. Downsizing or losing your property is a natural order of a free, real estate market, and our government currently actively interferes with this occurrence.

The Home Owner Grant will cost B.C. taxpayers $857 million during the coming fiscal year, and was introduced by the Social Credit government of WC Bennett in 1957, and amended by his son Bill Bennett in 1980. At the time the market was in a serious downturn with homes that were recently bought underwater, meaning their value was less than what was owed on the mortgage. Interest rates were also pushing 21 per cent, so the measure was likely needed to help a large number of property owners avoid foreclosure. Currently, B.C. is the only province in Canada that provides immediate tax relief simply based on an owner living in their home.


Now onto the property-tax deferral program. This program is increasing in popularity every year. In B.C., when you turn 55, you can apply to have all of your property tax deferred until you sell your home. Not only does the provincial government pay these taxes for you, but they charge you an extraordinarily low interest rate of 0.7 per cent for the benefit. We aren’t the only province in Canada to offer a program of this nature, but our program is by far the most lucrative for homeowners.

B.C. is the only province in Canada to allow application for this deferral at 55 (all other provinces who offer it you need to be 65 to apply), offers an interest rate at almost one-quarter its closest comparable (Alberta at 2.7 per cent), and is the only province that doesn’t qualify applicants based on having a low income. According to the recent budget, about $154 million in property taxes are currently deferred as part of this program. If B.C. was to make a simple change and charge the same interest rate as Alberta, our government’s assets would increase by $3 million this year. A small amount, but again this is another program that interferes with the real estate market’s natural supply of listings.

In other parts of Canada, if you want to retire early at 55, you sell your home and downsize. In our province, taxpayers subsidize you so you can stay in your current home. After all, $8,000-$10,000 a year pays a lot of bills. The provincial property-tax deferral program was introduced by the NDP government of Dave Barrett in 1974.

In January, Clark’s Liberal government introduced another taxpayer-funded program into the real estate market, the B.C. Home Owner Mortgage and Equity Partnership. Now I believe it’s in every person’s financial interest to own their primary residence at the very least, but should the ability to do so come at a cost to other taxpayers? This program is set to cost B.C. taxpayers $728 million over the next three years, and is estimated to add 1,400 buyers to the B.C. market in each of those years. While the loans will be repaid as long as the equity in the property remains in the red, the loans are interest free for the first five years.

So the provincial government subsidizes the real estate market to the tune of somewhere around $1.25 billion every year. Two programs affect supply by offering an incentive not to sell, and the other creates demand by encouraging people to buy. Just another three ingredients in the perfect recipe for higher prices and lower affordability for first-time buyers.

Of these programs, the most equitable program is the property-tax deferral program, but is still likely too generous and should be tightened. The Home Owner Grant is a classic example of a regressive tax break that favours those who already have means. It was likely needed in 1980, but in 2017 it isn’t. The mortgage and equity partnership is a classic example of a government stimulating demand and interfering with the economics of the free market. If the government put the money from these two programs into eliminating the Medical Services Plan premium they could eliminate about two-fifths of everyone’s fees with a simple transfer of this priority.

http://www.theprovince.com/opinion/o...285/story.html

[OMG!WTF!]

Good lord...

The NDP says it would slash the MSP by half, as outlined in the existing 2017 budget, and eliminate it completely within four years, saving families as much as $1,800 a year. A non-partisan MSP elimination panel would be struck to determine how to pay for the plan, according to the party's platform.

From a globe and mail article.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Good lord...



From a globe and mail article.

It's why I feel like it's too dangerous to vote NDP

[OMG!WTF!]

The $15 minimum wage would scare me too. There's enough evidence now that shows it's a bad idea.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

The $15 minimum wage would scare me too. There's enough evidence now that shows it's a bad idea.

Like what? I've read the opposite.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

Like what? I've read the opposite.

The most recent outcomes of large increases in minimum wage show way less benefit to actual low income earners than you would expect. Harvard and UW both showed what you would logically expect...business owners aren't going to accept less profit. So hours are cut, fewer people hired, more skilled workers are hired rather than true entry level employees, and fewer new businesses open. There's evidence now that low income earners are moving away from cities with high minimum wages. I suspect it still has a lot to do with the local economy in general. So for every $1 in wage I think there is a 60-70 cent net to employees due to cuts in hours and fewer positions available.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

Like what? I've read the opposite.

Why raising the minimum wage in Seattle did little to help workers, according to a new study

There can be negative effects. Increasing the minimum wage increases the costs of hiring workers. As a result, employers must accept reduced margins or customers must pay steeper prices.

If employers cannot stay in business while paying their staff more, they will either hire fewer people or give their workers fewer hours. As a result, even if wages per hour increase, workers' total earnings could decline.

Jacob Vigdor, an economist at the University of Washington and one of the authors of the report, speculated that technology could limit the benefits of increasing the minimum wage. If it becomes easier for employers to replace their workers with machines, they will be more likely to respond to wage hikes by making fewer hires.

"The economy has changed in ways that give businesses more options for cutting back on labor," Vigdor said. "If you are a person who is trying to make ends meet at the lower rungs of the economic ladder, you might be used to this idea that forces conspire against you. The minimum wage is an effort to try to keep some of these forces at bay, but there are definitely questions about how effectively and for how long."

Vigdor and his colleagues used detailed data from the state of Washington on where workers were employed, how many hours they had and how much they were making. They compared the data from Seattle to data from other places across the state to estimate how things might have gone for workers had the minimum wage not changed, a standard method in economic research.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...gs-in-seattle/

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

The $15 minimum wage would scare me too. There's enough evidence now that shows it's a bad idea.

Originally Posted by Dion

Why raising the minimum wage in Seattle did little to help workers, according to a new study



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...gs-in-seattle/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...=.6ca7a8d9cfdb

Putting aside for a moment the critical question of whether these changes are actually meaningful in a statistical sense, these outcomes fit comfortably into a view well understood by minimum-wage advocates and increasingly accepted by economists: most increases have their intended effect of lifting the pay of low-wage workers with little in the way of job losses.

The myth of the minimum wage being a job killing policy is perpetuated by business'

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

The myth of the minimum wage being a job killing policy is perpetuated by business'

Not really. It's mentioned in several university studies which I would assume are not in business. But I think the confusion is still that you can't properly estimate the effect of the over all economy when looking at the minimum wage mandate. Seattle was and is booming and the results have not been as intended. How will such a dramatic raise in minimum wages work when the economy sucks?

Anyway, the UW study very basically concludes this...

The major conclusion one should draw from this analysis is that the Seattle minimum Wage Ordinance worked as intended by raising the hourly wage rate of low-wage workers,yet the unintended, negative side effects on hours and employment muted the impact on labor earnings.

The Harvard study concludes the same via San Fransisco but no study or opinion should be considered the final word yet. It is however naive to suggest there is no downside to mandating an artificially high labour market. There is likely a perfect balance that goes along the lines of smaller, more regular increases to the existing level. The "fight for a living wage" thing is pretty much an ideology in my opinion and not even close to a sound economic practice.

[White Out 403]

there's no smoking gun only because economies are so complicated. so you wind up having people writing opinion papers saying "it didnt help... the economy was doing well anyways" which then would lead to the question if a higher minimum wage doesnt crash a good economy what exactly is the issue?

if the entire country operated with a higher minimum wage, every study every done shows that people who make that little money spend everything. they dont save. the money goes straight back into the economy and business. there might be a short hiccup to adjust but when business starts to see improved sales and the economy chugs along nicely with all the new capital, there would be a 'rising tide' scenario where all the new spending improves everyones lives.

its also a moral and ethical question. we will always need low skilled jobs (cleaners for example). is it morally right to then say that these necessary pieces of economy should live in poverty?if one works 40+ hours a week you shouldnt need to live on food stamps.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

there's no smoking gun only because economies are so complicated. so you wind up having people writing opinion papers saying "it didnt help... the economy was doing well anyways" which then would lead to the question if a higher minimum wage doesnt crash a good economy what exactly is the issue?

if the entire country operated with a higher minimum wage, every study every done shows that people who make that little money spend everything. they dont save. the money goes straight back into the economy and business. there might be a short hiccup to adjust but when business starts to see improved sales and the economy chugs along nicely with all the new capital, there would be a 'rising tide' scenario where all the new spending improves everyones lives.

its also a moral and ethical question. we will always need low skilled jobs (cleaners for example). is it morally right to then say that these necessary pieces of economy should live in poverty?if one works 40+ hours a week you shouldnt need to live on food stamps.

You have an NDP tattoo on your body don't you? You have been provided valid links with studies indicating that increasing minimum wages does not necessarily work yet you carry on like your opinion is much more valid.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

You have an NDP tattoo on your body don't you? You have been provided valid links with studies indicating that increasing minimum wages does not necessarily work yet you carry on like your opinion is much more valid.

I don't think it's that. I think it's just a different approach, like taking a shotgun after your target instead of an appropriate gauge of arms. Some people just think poor people should be richer so let's force them to get more money. A+B=C. It's not an unreasonable thought. What is unreasonable is expecting this to happen without any consequences...d,e and f.

It's like the opposite argument that goes, Alberta's minimum wage was totally irrelevant because we had the best economy in the country. Therefore you should create a business friendly economy to battle poverty. That's true but there are caveats.

I do hate the "people working 40 hours should be able to live above the poverty line" argument. I don't disagree with that but I'm positive there is a better way of going about getting them there.

[steve9981]

Nm

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Good lord...



From a globe and mail article.

Not excusing the NDP on this, but what has been the Liberal approach to paying for things?

They have been completely reliant on property transfer tax. The higher home prices go, the better, as that's their number 1 revenue stream to pay for any programs they want to implement.

They're essentially selling the public on the cost of housing going up 20% per year, but we'll use that to create infrastructure and jobs so be happy .

I'm in the real estate industry and selfishly benefit from a Liberal government, but how other people don't see the truth of this trade off is shocking to me.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by steve9981

I personally know of individuals who have worked minimum wage or close to for decades only to become successful later in life. It's all about how you save and invest.....not everyone working 40 hours/minimum wage is below the poverty line.

A worker getting paid $10.45 per hour, 35 hours per week for the full year would earn $19,019. Note that with the minimum wage increase only kicking in mid-September, this is slightly more than a minimum wage employee would actually earn, but I wanted to keep the calculation simpler.

An annual income of $19,019 is below the poverty line for a single individual with no dependents in all but rural areas. For reference, only 12% of BC’s population lived in rural areas in 2014.

In Metro Vancouver, a worker struggling to get by on minimum wage will be almost $5,500 below the poverty line for a single person this year. For a single parent with one child, the gap between minimum wage income and the poverty line would be over $11,000. About 53% of BC’s population lives in Metro Vancouver, according to BC Stats.

In one of BC’s bigger cities — cities like Victoria, Abbotsford, Kelowna, Kamloops, Nanaimo, Prince George — a full-time, full-year minimum wage worker would be about $2,000 below the poverty line for a single person. Even in small towns with population under 30,000 — including Cranbrook, Powell River, Port Alberni, Williams Lake — a full-time, full-year minimum wage worked won’t clear the poverty line.

http://www.policynote.ca/bc-minimum-...rs-in-poverty/

[afc wimbledon]

I suspect raising the minimum wage is like raising the cost of cigarettes, for the first while you cut down and think about quitting but after a while you get used to it and go back to your 'normal' level of smoking.

[OMG!WTF!]

What really gets me is the Occupy Wall Street mentality. "The Walton family is worth 150 billion so they can afford to pay higher wages". That's true here and now but I would argue that isn't true generally and if they had been paying a living wage since day one, WalMart would not exist.

But what's truly aggravating is that these people don't realize not everyone in business models themselves on low labour expenses and not everyone makes that kind of money in business. So blasting away at a $15 minimum wage is completely ignoring the vast majority of business owners who don't make that much. Let's punish billionaires by wrecking life for small business owners. Ain't nobody got time for that.

Also when you determine who exactly is going to benefit from a living wage, for example not teenagers, not service industry workers and not part timers, you get a very small number of people who are even available to benefit from artificially higher wages. And even that benefit is arguable.

They have been completely reliant on property transfer tax. The higher home prices go, the better, as that's their number 1 revenue stream to pay for any programs they want to implement.

Honestly? It's about 100% better than having no plan at all.

But whatever. You people do what you want. I already pay $15 an hour in BC plus commission. That barely gets me a live body. As an Albertan I have no say in this. My other BC business is contract based. I really look forward to the $60/hour guys whining about not getting a raise. There actually is a noticeable difference in mentality from BC to Alberta. I'd be surprised if the NDP didn't win.

[steve9981]

Nm

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by steve9981

Nice stats but I will just tell you some personal experience here. I grew up in Oliver BC and have a large network back home of individuals who work in orchards, are cashiers at liquor stores, work at golf courses/restaurants, work at grocery stores and none of them seem to be living a poverty life. I even worked at Wal-Mart in Penticton for a few years and none of my co-workers ever complained about not having a roof over their head or not enough food and living a life below the poverty line. Maybe I am wrong and these people were secretly going to food banks or living in subsidized housing but based on my personal observation of growing up in the Okanagan, most people who had these jobs managed to get by and over the years did even better as their wages increased.

Ya who needs stats when anecdotal evidence from some dude on a message board about some people he may have known from a small town in BC prove otherwise.