Although this budget may help reduce the provincial deficit, it will be bad for the impoverished and for the long-term health of the Saskatchewan economy.
There are two important public policy considerations:
- How different taxes impact various income groups.
- How different budgetary decisions impact job creation.
On the first issue, reductions in personal income tax and corporate income tax help the rich more than the poor. Sales tax increases, by contrast, hit lower-income households harder. That’s because lower-income households spend a larger portion of their income on goods and services than do higher-income households.
On the second issue, a $1 increase in government spending on public services (e.g., health, education, child care) creates far more jobs than a $1 reduction in any tax.
Any government that cares about addressing poverty should try to increase personal and corporate income taxes before sales taxes. And spending on social investment (especially on health, education and child care) can help the economy.
Over the past decade, provincial revenue derived from natural resources has seen a steady decline in Saskatchewan. Yet, going into the budget, only Alberta had a lower net debt-to-gross-domestic-product ratio than Saskatchewan’s rate of 10.3 per cent. By contrast, Manitoba’s was 22.5 per cent and Ontario’s was 40 per cent.
One could hardly call Saskatchewan’s debt a fiscal crisis. What is at crisis levels is poverty.
A single employable adult on social assistance in Saskatchewan gets only about $9,000 a year to live on. If a resident on social assistance has a disability, they get less than $12,000 a year.
And the on-reserve rate of child poverty in Saskatchewan is almost 70 per cent – second highest in the country after Manitoba.
Against this backdrop, let’s consider what this budget did.
It decreased personal and corporate income tax rates by 0.5 per cent in 2017, and by another 0.5 per cent in 2019. This will help higher-income households much more than lower-income households.
It increased the provincial sales tax (PST) from five to six per cent (this will hurt lower-income households more than higher-income households). It also expanded PST coverage (now it includes children’s clothing, for instance).
The province’s low-income tax credit will receive a $34-million enhancement, ostensibly to cushion the blow for low-income households – but this pales in comparison with the estimated $872 million in revenue that the PST changes will bring in.
According to the recent analysis by Trevor Tombe and Blake Shaffer, all of these tax changes will hit lower-income households harder than higher-income households. Factoring in the cuts to income tax, the increase to PST and the Low Income Tax Credit, earners in the bottom 10 per cent will see a two per cent increase in taxes as a percentage of household income. That steadily declines as incomes rise, while those in the top 10 per cent will see no increase at all to their taxes.
When one factors in inflation, there will be a reduction in total program spending of approximately 4.3 per cent. Health funding will grow (by 0.7 per cent) but that simply reflects a national trend due in part to an aging population.
Base funding for colleges and universities is being cut by five per cent. Operating funding for school boards is being cut by 1.2 per cent. Cuts to funding for libraries will lead to job losses and less access to literacy services.
The government will even stop funding funeral services for social assistance recipients.
The government of Premier Brad Wall hopes to wipe out the deficit by 2019-20. It may just do that, largely on the backs of lower-income households.
Good budgeting invests in people while strengthening the economy. This budget did neither.
Nick Falvo is a research associate at the Carleton University Centre for Community Innovation. He has a PhD in public policy and is based in Calgary.
© Troy Media
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.