Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

Let us now debate the difference between user fees and taxes (II)

by Aaron Wherry on Friday, February 26, 2010 12:38pm - 56 Comments

Officially it is called the Airport Travellers Security Charge. Introduced in 2002, it was reduced from $24 to $14 in the Liberal government’s budget for 2003. Hansard shows two references to the charge from Stephen Harper, Canadian Alliance leader and leader of the opposition at the time, during the session of Parliament when that budget was tabled, the first of which links to this speech, delivered in response to that budget.

That speech makes four references to an “air tax.”

Tags: air tax, Airport Travellers Security Charge, canadian alliance, Hansard, house of commons, Parliament, security, Stephen Harper, terrorism

More by Aaron Wherry

http://intensedebate.com/people/Geiseric Geiseric

Does this mean Baird gets to do his monster act?
http://intensedebate.com/people/c_9 c_9

But it could be worse: if you skip voting or spoil your ballot, you get everybody!
Lord Kitchener's Own

Well, it's a good question that's hard to answer, but I'll maintain to my dying day that Paul Martin would have given us MUCH more conservative governance if he'd beaten Harper in their last head-to-head than what we got from the current crew. People who actually wanted government based on conservative principles made a mistake when they voted for Harper over Martin, but given Harper's rhetoric at the time it was understandable to expect that Harper was going to govern as he campaigned.

Liberals run to the left and govern to the right, and Tories reverse the trend. I've often thought that our last 4 years of minority governments has been one long game of "opposite day".
Ted

Is that more, less than or the same propaganda value in branding a relatively significant decrease in airport security fees ($24 to $14) as a "destructive air tax"?

Is that more, less than or the same propaganda value in promising to not increase taxes without any intention of keeping your promise?
Ted

Agreed.

But I can see lots of Canadians getting annoyed and further distrustful of Harper if he insists on saying his party is the only one that will not increase taxes when he has now done it twice.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

Only if Canadians become aware of that.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

If you look at the Liberal policies when they're in gov't.. you tend to get policies that are fiscally conservative, with socially progressive values.

Of course, that's because fiscal conservatism tends to fly better in Canada than social conservatism, so when conservatives are in opposition, they fight harder for the fiscal than the social. Meanwhile, the progressives in opposition placate themselves with the socially progressive side of things.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Answer to first question: Roughly the same. Both are examples of meaningless propaganda.

Is that more, less than or the same propaganda value in promising to not increase taxes without any intention of keeping your promise?

Harper promised "no new taxes", and as there have not been any new taxes we can infer that has every intention of keeping his promise. A minor increase in airport security fees hardly qualifies as a "new tax", no matter how hard the spin doctors try to spin it that way.
http://intensedebate.com/people/sourstud sourstud

Most definitely dumber. But thats what we get when a security fee/tax debate is not about if the fee/tax is a good thing or not, but weather or not it is a fee or a tax or a service charge or whatever.

We are all, quite litterally in this case, simply arguing symantics. And thats a waste of everybodies time.

frobisher

I also like Symantics. Their anti-virus software was, and may still be, very popular. And effective. Talk about security! That's everybody's business. Tell on your neighbour!
http://intensedebate.com/people/WDM WDM

Yes, apologies to all for not engaging in debate on whether Baird's explanation of a tax versus a user fee, when in either case I'm giving them more money, is a place for high minded policy discussions.

http://intensedebate.com/people/sourstud sourstud

You'll get a party with no principles, who will transform itself daily to pander to whatever special-interest group is in vogue for the day.
Chris B

It was a dialogue from the simpsons – when Mayor Quimby introduced a Bear Tax….
dave

If one were to audit government revenues equating User Fees with Taxes over the term of Harper's Governance, I suspect you'd find "twice" as the number of increases to be a vast understatement.
http://intensedebate.com/people/sourstud sourstud

I'm quite aware of that, thank you very much. And thats my point. WTF does quoting TV sitcoms have to do with substantive debate about anything other than the quality of TV sitcoms?
Lord Kitchener's Own

WTF does quoting TV sitcoms have to do with substantive debate about anything other than the quality of TV sitcoms?

Who TF comes to the comments section of the Macleans blogs for "substantive debate"?

In other news: LIGHTEN UP!!!!

http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

Maclean's blogs: come for the substantive debate, stay for the debate about anything other than the quality of TV sitcoms!

Lord Kitchener's Own

I see what you did there.
burlivespipe

"It's ripe for distortion, that's for sure."

now there's something both Harper and his sock puppets know of…
Lord Kitchener's Own

LOL

I know what you were trying to do there, but are you seriously suggesting that the description of "a party with no principles, who will transform itself daily" doesn't fit the current Tories to a T???
http://intensedebate.com/people/jasonhickman jasonhickman

That would assume that the big-ticket promises that Martin was making in the last few months were just hot air – which is, I suppose, entirely possible.

I also disagree that Martin "governed from the right" during the time between the '04 and '06 election – quite the opposite, in fact.

For myself, I think had Martin been re-elected, it would've been a minority government, and he would've needed the support of either the BQ, NDP or CPC. And has his last(?) budget showed, Martin was more than willing to cut a deal with the NDP when it came to the budget.

All this isn't to praise the level of spending that the Tories have engaged in (though, arguably, they've been pushed by the fact that all 3 parties in parliament are pushing from their left). But given Martin's behaviour as PM, I think we'd have seen just as much lolly coming out of his Ottawa, albeit in different directions.
Ted

Actually, he did both: no new taxes and increased taxes.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're demonstrating with that link. Are you saying that Harper has increased taxes by implementing HST?
Brian

Don't call it an "air tax," that's no fun…

BAIRD TAX
BAIRD TAX
BAIRD TAX
BAIRD TAX
BAIRD TAX
Some thoughts

There is nothing to debate. Taxes are user fees. Anyone who goes to hospital, has children in school, drives on the highways, is protected by the army and police benefits from the"user fees" which are the GST, income tax etc. taxes are the price of civilization. It is reasonable to expect value for your taxes and to keep them to a minimum necessary to maintain civilized amenities. Only barbarians seek to avoid taxes completely. From them should be withdrawn all the benefits paid for by the taxpayer.
http://intensedebate.com/people/c_9 c_9

Now now, the others haven't had their turns yet. Just wait!