BRITISH COLUMBIA the city’s workers and residents. of Progressive Electors. out to $25 this year. A decision by Vancouver city council's finance committee that was expected to be. ratified by the full council Tuesday means no layoffs or significant cuts in service for The committee voted 3-2 Apr. 12 foran operating budget in 1984 that will “make the city an island of stability in a sea of provincial-government dictated cutbacks,” said Ald. Bruce Yorke of the Committee Yorke, along with Ald. Harry Rankin, who chairs the finance body, and Ald. Bill Yee voted for a tax increase on homeowners of 4.5 per cent, which works In doing so, the aldermen ran up against a right-wing opposition that opted for a lesser increase and greater cuts in services, with aldermen May Brown and George Puil voting against the measure. Seven weeks ago council voted in prin- ciple for the same idea, when Mayor Mike Harcourt, Yee and Ald. Don Bellamy joined the COPE aldermen in approving a move to lift $7 million from the city’s $400- million property endowment fund. The $7 million transfer, which repres- ented only interest and not the principal of the fund, was necessary to help meet severe revenue shortfalls from provincial government municipal grants. Coupled with a modest tax increase, it meant saving the jobs of city workers and | preserving, with only some cuts, city servi- ces. But council’s right wing — aldermen Brown, Puil, Marguerite Ford and War- nett Kennedy — opposed the move, opt- ing for cutbacks instead. They voted the same way in 1983, when the progressive majority fulfilled its elec- tion promise by taking $5 million in inter- est from the fund to counter provincial government revenue cuts. Perhaps more than any other issue, the vote on the operating budget has revealed the difference in priorities between coun- cil’s right and left forces. With the aldermen from The Electors Action Movement and the civic Non- Partisan Association consistently voting for Socred megaprojects atid related developments, such as the Cambie Street bridge —Puil in fact had opted for transferring $20 million from the property fund to help pay costs for the $65-million project — the right wing’s priorities have become clear. Higher taxes, such as the extra $15 that will be tacked onto next year’s tax bill due to the Cambie bridge, are supportable to council’s right when they’re used to pay for large-scale megaprojects. But the same forces can be expected to make an issue of the 4.5 per cent hike in this year’s tax bill during civic campaigns this fall — despite the fact that without the modest increase, several hundred city workers would be on the streets. ““What’s at stake is political,” acknowl- edged Ald. Bruce Yorke in moving the motion for the tax hike in finance commit- tee. “I would far rather have a program that maximizes the number of jobs in this city. . Vancouver — no-layoffs budget anticipated “In effect, the voters already approved this when they voted for the four-year cap- ital plan in the 1982 plebiscite,” Yorke said later. Some $9 million will be transferred from the operating budget into the capital - budget in 1984. The tax hike will be the first in two years. Last year’s budget was balanced with the fund transfer and no tax increase The city is also phasing out the business tax, which applied to all businesses whether proprietors rented or owned theif premises. The property fund transfer was recom- mended by city finance director Peter Leckie in his report to the finance commit tee, although he had recommended 4 lower tax increase of 3.5 per cent. The one-per cent difference between what was recommended and what was adopted — which amounts to $5 per homeowner — comes froma reduction in the arbitrated settlement awarded the Firefighters Union following a ruling by ~ Compensation Stabilization Program Commissioner Ed Peck. Right now, thousands of citizens in B.C. will be struggling with their income tax returns. Not a few will be cursing at the large amount of their income that they have to pay in income tax to both the federal and provincial governments. For working people the tax could range anywhere from 20 per cent to well over 30 per cent. The big corporations operating in Canada, especially those foreign-owned and in the resource extraction field, do not have any such problems. Many of them do not pay any income tax at all and most pay only a very small percen- tage. This is because of a legal racket known as “‘deferred income tax,” a spe- cial government concession to these cor- porations that is not available to you or to me. Let me give you a few -examples. They'll shock you and make you angry. In 1982 Shell Oil made a profit of $302 million. Not only did it pay no income tax — it received a tax credit for $47 million for future years. Trans Canada Pipelines earned a profit of $182 million and paid income tax only at the rate of seven per cent. Consolidated Bathurst made $79 million profit, paid no income tax and claimed a credit of $3.6 million for taxes it may pay in future years. Tax regulations permit these corpora- tions to defer payment of their income tax to some future unspecified time. rate of 46 per cent, but because of this deferred tax regulation they pay next to nothing. Yet their books show them as paying a high rate of taxes and it is only when you come to the end of their finan- cial statement that you find a small note to the effect that most of their taxes have been deferred. Deferred taxes are a special concession certain kinds of investments such as development and exploration, research, plant and equipment. Consolidated Bathurst reported a tax rate of 34.7 per cent in 1982 but in fact paid nothing. Imperial Oil deferred $322 million in taxes in 1982 bringing its total They are supposed to pay taxes at the — or tax break that these companies get on. If companies paid taxes deficit would disappear of unpaid or deferred taxes to $1.29 bil- lion. Bell Canada deferred $129 million in taxes in 1982 bringing its total of deferred taxes to $1.2 billion. Gulf Can- ada deferred $106 million in 1982. Mac- Millan Bloedel, which claims it hasn’t enougn money to pay wage increases and that it must close down some of its plants, deferred $55 million in 1982 bringing its total of deferred income taxes to $227 million. In 1971, the total of deferred income tax of corporations like these amounted to $2.78 billion. By 180 this had risen to $24.24 billion, enough to cover the whole federal deficit at that time. In 1980, in that one year alone, deferred income taxes amounted to $3.9 billion. When it comes to paying income tax, the rule seems to be that the larger the corporation, the smaller the tax rate. It’s no wonder that who pays what in income Harry Rankin tax has undergone such a dramatic change in the last 30 years. In 1954 individuals paid $1.17 billion in income tax while corporations paid $1.05 billion — approximately the same amount. In 1982 individuals paid $26 billion and corporations paid only $8 billion. In other words individuals now pay three times as much as corporations. When will these corporations pay back their deferred taxes? The answer is never. They are in fact a free gift to corporations. Both in Ottawa and Victoria, they keep talking about the deficit and the need to cut social services and raise per- sonal income tax to keep down or reduce | the deficit. All they have to do to wipe it out would be to call in the deferred income taxes! Isn’t it time we demanded an end to this unfair practice of making working people pay high taxes while corporations get away with paying little or no taxes? 2 e PACIFIC TRIBUNE, APRIL 18, 1984 — City pressing for withdrawal of tenant bill Faced with an anticipated flood of demands for inspections of run-down rental dwellings, Vancouver city council has demanded the Social Credit government withdraw its new, hotly contested rental legislation. © Agreement to send a telegram to Con- sumer Affairs Minister Jim Hewitt request- ing withdrawal of Bill 19, the proposed new Residential Tenancy Act came following presentations from tenants’ organizations Apr. 10. Council also agreed to tell Hewitt the city “does not support the main features of Bill 19” after David Lane of the B.C. Tenants Rights Coalition told the aldermen the act will dump an extra 500 cases onto city inspectors. Lane said the new $30 fee, which will be charged tenants who wish to take repairs and other matters before a government- appointed arbitrator, is prohibitive for thou- sands of tenants + the poor, the elderly and those on welfare and unemployment insurance. That, coupled with the fact that the new act disallows protection for hotel and room- ing house residents means hundreds will be seeking protection from the city under its standards-of-maintenance bylaw, Lane contended. “Tt will again dump extra services and B.C. an n-free zone? Chiding. the provincial government for - prohibiting municipalities to pass bylaws against nuclear weapons within their boun- daries, NDP MLA Lorne Nicholson has introduced a motion calling for the declara- tion of the whole province as a nuclear-free zone. Nicholson, who represents the Nelson- Creston riding, introduced his motion Apr. 9 after the city of Nelson was refused per- mission to institute its nuclear-free zone bylaw by the Social Credit government. “The general public is more concerned that ever about the issue of world peace and yet the (provincial) government appears to be out of touch with reality. ..there can be no higher priority for a government than striving to attain world peace,” said Nicholson. 4 DAVID LANE.. tenants’ cases dumped 0" city extra costs onto the city administration. - -It is estimated that five to 10 additional inspe~ tors will be needed to cover the increase 10 complaints that will be directed at the city due to the $30 user fee imposed by the province,” he said. : j The tenants activists also argue that city control over redevelopment, demolition and conversion is seriously eroded by the new act, citing an analysis of Bill 19 pre pared by the Vancouver Legal Assistance Society. The Society noted that under the act’s Section 29, governing evictions for purposes of conversion of a rental unit, municip consent for conversion, demolition or rede- velopment is no longer required. “Landlords will simply evict first, and the approving authorities will be faced with an application to convert an empty building,” stated the society’s brief. “This new act effectively turns the clock back to 1970,” said Ald. Bruce Yorke in moving motions urging withdrawal of the bill. The city’s position is important since the tenants’ coalition is urging organizations to write or telegram their objections to the new “landlords’ legislation,” Lane said later. Together with representatives of Van- couver’s First United Church, the Down- town Eastside Residents Association, Women Against the Budget and other organizations, the coalition had sought and achieved a meeting with Hewitt in Victoria Apr. 9. “Each group told the minister exactly what they thought of the so-called tenant act. He hasn’t promised any changes for the better yet, but we ask all supporters of fair — tenants’ legislation to make sure he gets the message that Bill 19 isn’t the answer,” Lane said.