Translink & 0.5% vote (merged)

Not really sure why this has to be a PST increase, or (as suggested by someone else, property taxes).

Because Christy doesn't want to take the fall for raising taxes and instead can point to "the people" wanting/not wanting to fund transit. The Libs don't really want to impose any kind of tax increase, hence the Leadership Fail.

You make it sound as though the un-poor don't pay, but they do and will pay the most which is just as it costs more to subsidize the infrastructure for their cars. But you knew that amiright?

So why does the Provincial government just go ahead and fund vehicle infrastructure out fuel taxes and general revenue instead of holding a referendum? If the Government is serious about reducing gridlock and improving transit, why don't they make it a priority pronto instead of holding a referendum?

So why does the Provincial government just go ahead and fund vehicle infrastructure out fuel taxes and general revenue instead of holding a referendum? If the Government is serious about reducing gridlock and improving transit, why don't they make it a priority pronto instead of holding a referendum?

My thought would be that acceptance of the increased tax is a gauge for measuring public buy-in.

Plus, taxes aren't popular. If you let the people decide, its harder for them to chastise you for them.

and I'm sure he's doing it for free…
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/jimmy-pattison-to-monitor-translink-transit-tax-spending-if-referendum-passes-1.2983426

Plus, taxes aren't popular. If you let the people decide, its harder for them to chastise you for them.

Yup, it provides political cover. The mayors didn't want to raise property taxes (which they could have done without a referendum) because they don't want to be seen raising them either. So even though they say that they don't want the referendum, their actions say otherwise. There's enough BS to go around for everyone…

Because the personal tax rate for the top earning segment is 45.8% in BC (over 151K) which presumably is the same group that benefiting from the low corporate tax rate.

Low corporate tax rates benefit small and medium size companies.

The premise is that a company will pay its owners well, and they will pay taxes at a high individual rate. You have to remember that the economy is driven by small and medium size companies. The mega-international corporations that operate in BC are usually involved in a tax scheme that will see them pay an abnormally small amount of taxes no matter the rate.

Small business pays corp tax rate of 2.5%. Business owners paying themselves salaries of [HTML_REMOVED]151K, triggering top marginal tax rate have bad accountants/tax advisors. Pay out as dividends and get taxed at maybe half from what I read ( it's a bit complicated http://www.fool.ca/13-steps-to-financial-freedom/step-8-the-great-dividend-tax-advantage/ )

According to the table, corp tax rate has moved from 16.5% to 10, and now back to 11%. But gov't doesn't have the funds needed to cover the desired infrastructure increases.

So the theory that cutting corp tax rate will drive growth, which in turn will create more jobs/personal taxes, doesn't appear to be working.

Were we able to fund infrastructure projects back when the corp tax rate was 16.5%?

a

So why does the Provincial government just go ahead and fund vehicle infrastructure out fuel taxes and general revenue instead of holding a referendum? If the Government is serious about reducing gridlock and improving transit, why don't they make it a priority pronto instead of holding a referendum?

Because Christy doesn't want to take the fall for raising taxes

Like FLATCH said prissy Crispy Clark don't want no shit on her shoes.

So they are going to appoint someone who is 86 years old to oversee the next 10 years?

Polls show the no side a fair bit ahead. Expect a huge media blitz.

"Our future, our story" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fDB58q6ehi8[HTML_REMOVED]feature=youtu.be

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Legalize weed! Money for transit and legal weed. Win win.

Legalize weed! Money for transit and legal weed. Win win.

This is actually a really good idea.
Nobody should be driving after smoking dope or drinking thus all taxes generated from aforementioned said activities should go directly to subsidize transit.

This is actually a really good idea.
Nobody should be driving after smoking dope or drinking thus all taxes generated from aforementioned said activities should go directly to subsidize transit.

The unemployed gangland enforcers can be absorbed into Translink Security as they should be mutually-acquainted with the local police forces, getting regular Christmas cards etc from them and such. Its even more Win-Win (pans to mental image of a Skytrain turning into one long walk-in bong-sauna between the stops, like a re-birth of the "Age of Steam").

The unemployed gangland enforcers can be absorbed into Translink Security as they should be mutually-acquainted with the local police forces, getting regular Christmas cards etc from them and such. Its even more Win-Win (pans to mental image of a Skytrain turning into one long walk-in bong-sauna between the stops, like a re-birth of the "Age of Steam").

With the exception of Indo-Canadian women wage slaves going downtown on a booklet of single zone passes to do the custodial work wrested from hard working Canadian wage-slaves, eh?

"What they’re asking is for us to not act like taxpayers. They’re asking us to act like citizens" http://www.vancouversun.com/touch/story.html?id=10868904

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is the writer a fan of Starship Troopers?

People will pay if they get good deal on something. When they pay more than they believe is fair, they won't pay. You can call that hating taxes, or you can call it hating waste.