BC hat ein Umsatzproblem, kein Ausgabenproblem | Die Lösung für die fiskalischen Herausforderungen von BC gibt keine Kürzungen aus. Die Erfahrung zeigt, dass die Unterfinanzierung öffentlicher Dienste zu höheren wirtschaftlichen und sozialen Kosten führt. Stattdessen benötigt BC progressive Umsatzmaßnahmen

https://vancouversun.com/opinion/op-ed/opinion-b-c-has-a-revenue-problem-not-a-spending-problem

Hrmbee on 28.09.2025 7:09 p.m.

Key issues here:

>B.C.’s debt has increased sharply in recent years, but it remains one of the lowest in the country as a share of GDP. Projected increases to 2027-28 would leave it in the middle of the pack among provinces and lower than Ontario’s today.
>
>As one of Canada’s wealthiest provinces with the third-highest GDP per capita, B.C. can manage this fiscal challenge if we address its root causes.
>
>The most telling statistic: B.C.’s own source revenue — taxes, fees and royalties the province has control over — has plummeted from 19.2 per cent to 15.4 per cent of GDP over 25 years. This 3.8 percentage point drop represents $16.8 billion in foregone revenues annually — enough to eliminate the deficit with money left over for child care, education and other vital investments.
>
>…
>
>What caused this?
>
>First, deep tax cuts to personal and corporate taxes in the early 2000s were never fully reversed, eroding B.C.’s fiscal capacity even as the economy grew.
>
>Second, ending the carbon tax cost $2.8 billion this year, rising to $3.4 billion in 2027-28. When the carbon tax was introduced in 2008, it was paired with a new low-income tax credit and personal and corporate tax cuts to make it revenue neutral.
>
>When the carbon tax was scrapped in April, the province eliminated only the low-income tax credit but kept the tax cuts, largely benefiting higher earners.
>
>Third, natural resource revenues have declined sharply from 2.5 per cent of GDP in the early 2000s to 0.6 per cent of GDP today — a massive structural shift that demands higher royalty rates, in particular for non-renewable resources.
>
>Critics calling for more tax cuts ignore a basic fact: B.C. is already a very low-tax jurisdiction.
>
>…
>
>The solution to B.C.’s fiscal challenges isn’t spending cuts. They may appear fiscally cautious, but experience from the early 2000s shows that underfunding public services and failing to address poverty leads to higher economic and social costs. Instead, B.C. needs progressive revenue measures that can fund the public investments that our growing population needs.
>
>B.C. faces record high income inequality — our richest 20 per cent hold 53 per cent of disposable income, the highest in Canada, while the poorest 20 per cent hold only three per cent. The growing concentration of income and wealth creates a moral imperative and an economic opportunity for progressive taxation.
>
>Viable revenue options include: additional personal income tax brackets with higher rates on high-income British Columbians; property tax reform with progressive property tax brackets and a land value tax; corporate income tax increases; and higher natural resource royalties that better reflect public ownership of resources.

These are important points to consider, not just in British Columbia’s example here but also nationwide. It seems that over the past decades, the general solution to a lack of government funds has been to cut spending rather than to raise revenues and in particular revenues that are raised progressively. In the long run, this has cost our society much more than if we had raised and spent the necessary money early on before some of our social challenges ballooned out of control. It seems that in essence governments of all stripes have implemented half of the Keynesian cycle: cut taxes when times are tough. The other half: raise taxes when times are good has never seemed to materialize.

3 Kommentare