Canadian businesses spend $12.6 billion

[jdobbin]

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/AL...iU8SbWL1HTgyJuA

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business estimates that $12.6 billion is spent annually on the accountants, tax advisers and employees required for businesses in this country to comply with tax laws.

That's on top of the actual taxes paid, according to the group, which lobbies for small-and medium-sized businesses at the federal, provincial and local levels.

The CFIB also says smaller firms are the hardest hit by what it calls a "hidden tax."

I have to agree with what the CFIB says. The Liberals and the Tories have made the tax system very complicated and arcane wordings and interpretations leave both individual and business scratching their heads.

Much of the tax system needs to be simplified to make it the most cost effective and that people don't have to get an accountant to pour over each detail of their filings.

Edited August 21, 2008 by jdobbin

[geoffrey]

I'm sure having businesses account for every little bit of their emissions, determine their offset, have these offsets challenged in tax court, then refile again with a different set of offsets and emissions... and then have that challenged again... will be much cheaper than the current system.

A carbon tax is so simple in the mind of Dion, but he's never sat in a real Boardroom or dealt with a real business. The realities of complex consumption taxes is that they are extremely administrative heavy, especially when it demands companies keep a seperate set of 'carbon books' in order to comply with the CRA.

No way. If you want cheaper, a flat income tax is really simple. Or even a pure VAT. But not a carbon tax. You haven't seen anything yet in terms of cost.

[jdobbin]

I'm sure having businesses account for every little bit of their emissions, determine their offset, have these offsets challenged in tax court, then refile again with a different set of offsets and emissions... and then have that challenged again... will be much cheaper than the current system.

A carbon tax is so simple in the mind of Dion, but he's never sat in a real Boardroom or dealt with a real business. The realities of complex consumption taxes is that they are extremely administrative heavy, especially when it demands companies keep a seperate set of 'carbon books' in order to comply with the CRA.

You realize that Harper's plan hits Alberta even harder. It is an $8 to $9 billion hit annually to meet the cap which is 0.5% of GDP.

[August1991]

A carbon tax is so simple in the mind of Dion, but he's never sat in a real Boardroom or dealt with a real business. The realities of complex consumption taxes is that they are extremely administrative heavy, especially when it demands companies keep a seperate set of 'carbon books' in order to comply with the CRA.

Good point Geoffrey. I happen to be in favour of a carbon tax (and environmental taxes/royalties in gneeral) but the CFIB underestimates the cost of any tax.

The accountants and advisors are only one small cost. The true cost is in the changed behaviour of the taxpayer. How many people or businesses take crazy or arcane actions simply because it's cheaper than paying the tax. How much time is spent dreaming up such schemes?

[geoffrey]

You realize that Harper's plan hits Alberta even harder. It is an $8 to $9 billion hit annually to meet the cap which is 0.5% of GDP.

Harper's plan deals with intensity of emissions. The oil sands and resource production in Alberta has already cut the intensity per barrel below 1990 levels for some time. Each barrel is 50% cleaner than it was only 5 years ago.

Intensity targets are the only way to manage this (in my belief). You can't have economic expansion and less carbon emissions.

Or perhaps we should realise the issue is consumption of oil and not production? The fundamental cost of carbon should rest with the end user, and that is the consumer at the gas pump.

If Alberta produces the cleanest barrel of oil ever, it will do nothing if we need to produce 10x as much to keep up with demand. I think asking companies to produce more oil and less emissions is absurd. Lowering intensity dramatically is the only reasonable step.

Dobbin, you need to realise some realities. Oil consumption is out of the hands of Alberta legislators (we are but 3 million in a world of several billion). Therefore you have a choice. Buy Suncor's oil that is considerably dirtier but improving. Or buy Aramco or National Iran oil that funds terrorism here and overseas. It's not a tough choice for me.

At the end of the day, we'll need both, but moving Alberta oil into emissions comparibility per barrel to Saudi oil is the best alternative. We should produce more oil, at a lower intensity. That's the best possible outcome considering all the factors.

It makes as much sense to levy a tax on applicance and vehicle makers that produce carbon producing appliances than it does to tax the oil companies.

[jdobbin]

Harper's plan deals with intensity of emissions. The oil sands and resource production in Alberta has already cut the intensity per barrel below 1990 levels for some time. Each barrel is 50% cleaner than it was only 5 years ago.

Intensity targets are the only way to manage this (in my belief). You can't have economic expansion and less carbon emissions.

Or perhaps we should realise the issue is consumption of oil and not production? The fundamental cost of carbon should rest with the end user, and that is the consumer at the gas pump.

I guess should repeat what I said. Even with intensity limits as Harper intends, it hits Alberta harder than Dion's plan according to several who have analyzed the plans. You okay with that?