Corporate welfare of the worst kind
Potholes? No. Snow clearing? No. Celine? Yes.
And judging from the reaction on 91.9 FM this morning, not too many bluenosers are all that pleased she is coming to Halifax anyway. Although this guy seems to think it's great just for the fact that they beat Moncton. Huh? Beating Moncton a coup? I think someone needs to get out more.The City of Halifax is spending $150,000 tax dollars to host a Celine Dion concert next summer.
If I lived in Halifax and knew my hard-earned tax dollars weren't going to fund core services, but rather to put on a concert of an artist I don't even like, I would be livid. Heck, even if I did like her music, I wouldn't expect my city council to use my money to get her to sing in my city.
What's next, bribing Conan O'Brien with a million taxpayer bucks to do his show from Halifax?
Whoops, Toronto already did that...
Anyway, regardless of how much of a coup this is, I think the city should hold a referendum and ask taxpayers whether or not they are willing to pay the extra money to host Dion? Or better yet, a preferential referendum with the Tragically Hip, Shit From Hell, Radiohead, Steve Earle and Billy Bragg on the ballot.
I mean honestly, UNB students were even given the opportunity a few years back to vote "yes" or "no" on whether or not to pay extra admin. fees in order to add a varsity football team to their campus. A majority of students ultimately chose to reject the idea. I wonder how many Haligonians would do the same in this instance?
18 Comments:
This isn't welfare nb, it's fraud at the very least, if not outright theft.
We citizens pay taxes to provide essential services not entertainment.
I hope there is someone in Halifax that is going to beat the elected councilors about the head and shoulders with this issue until they cry UNCLE!
Ideology is fine, but you should do a little more research:
"In Halifax, city hall will contribute up to $150,000 for the Dion concert and the two proposed ones, Mayor Peter Kelly said after the meeting in council chambers. But he was quick to point out the money will not come from taxpayers — it’s from the city’s special-events fund. Money in that fund is derived from a hotel tax paid by visitors to the city."
Oh, so because the money comes from taxes levied against individuals that don't actually reside in the HRM that makes it ok?
Having driven in Halifax I think that fixing some of the back streets would be a very special event to some of its residents.
Being a longtime Nova Scotian, I agree with zip, there are many streets in the north end and around the uniacke square region which could use that cash to upgrade. The optics of this are just brutal.
it's no wonder municipal governments are always claiming they are strapped for cash. Hotel tax or not, this money could have been spent more wisely. Not sure handing over 150 thousand to a millionaire while turning a profit constitutes that.
This is a hotel tax that is designed specifically for tourism, which means the 'tax' is used for special events, which then brings in more customers to those paying the tax. It's pretty hard to tell hotel and hotel patrons that you are going to tax them so that it can be used for street repairs.
This is actually the BEST kind of tax, it is aimed specifically at a group and is then used to service them, which is why it works.
It seems odd to complain about the kind of tax that actually does what it is supposed to. The Canadian Taxpayers Association has been on the governments case for decades to get them to only use gas taxes for road repairs. That's a tax specifically designed for one purpose, but as usual just gets thrown in the pot.
If you want to complain about roads then its the federal government which has been underfunding municipal infrastructure for decades. But in this case, it is people NOT from Halifax who are paying for the concerts, which will increase tourism and business.
However, knowing that the money doesn't even come from Halifax residents then I'd agree that a referendum would be a fine idea, since somebody else is paying for it, I"ll bet the majority would vote for it.
To use your analogy would you consider it a wise use of tax revinue from gas taxes to host a nascar race?
If the hotel industry wants to boost its revenue by hosting a concert let THEM pay for it out of their profits.
As individuals, we don't make profits we make a living, and taxes are quickly reducing that to a zero sum game.
That's ridiculous, taxes now are lower than they've ever been in the past. Sit down and do your tax freedom day, it comes out to about March or April.
The analogy above makes no sense, in this case the tax goes directly into a service that increases the market and services for those paying the tax. The fact that hotels and others, who have a fair bit of lobbying clout (at least municipally) have not been making huge complaints about this (and neither have the travellers) and it shows that this is a non issue.
There is certainly lots of things about municipal and other government uses of tax dollars that can be bitched about quite legitimately, this doesn't appear to be one of them. But if people want to fight for the rights of tourists to save a couple of bucks on their hotel bills (and not have the services), then knock yourselves out. If tourists cared that much they would stop going to halifax-instead, this is a reason for many to go to Halifax, which is the purpose for the tax in the first place.
But if visitors to Halifax are forced to pay these taxes then is it not possible that they will be less able to return regularly, or perhaps put off from visiting in the first place due to the initial cost which includes this tax grab?
What is the issue here? Visitors pay a few points of tax which enables the city to spend $150,000 to bring in a concert which will create $2-$3 million in economic spinoff for local business (which in itself generates more general and tourist tax revenue). I fail to see the issue.
The hotel tax is 2%, which means $2 for a $100 a night stay. I seriously doubt many tourists are not able to go to Halifax because of that $2.
In fact, like Eugene says, the economic spinoff makes stuff like this very important for Halifax as it is a 'destination location'. There is simply no place else the size of Halifax in Atlantic Canada. Personally, I'm with NBT and would rather see Radiohead, but it is the big names like these that bring people in.
I can understand people from OUTSIDE Halifax complaining, because essentially if you are from Moncton, you are paying that $2 tax on your hotel room in order for Halifax to continue to bring in big names-it doesn't help Moncton any. But then Halifax council is not in the business of helping out other municipalities.
That's a valid complaint since I doubt people are coming from further than atlantic canada to see her, maybe Maine. But thats sort of like complaining about paid parking in Halifax-if you don't want to pay it, then you don't have to go there (I certainly wouldn't to see Celine Dion, but I'm sure lots will). Like the taxes on cigarettes and liquor (and unlike income and property) there are easy ways to avoid paying the tax and that is not subjecting your ears to , damn, I was going to put some Celine Dion lyrics there but I don't know any, but the point should be clear.
So unless NBT is using "corporate welfare of the worst kind" to mean that Celine Dion is the worst kind of singer, the caption pretty much demeans the whole emphasis on corporate welfare-if THIS is the 'worst kind' then its not even an issue at all (which I think we all know it is).
So for all of you that have absolutely no problem with this tax you should also have absolutely no problem with the federal government giving Bombardier 13 million dollars for research and development. Or Via rail money to improve infrastructure and services, regardless of how little (if at all) those payouts benefit you.
There is absolutely no difference. The money paid to Bombardier and Via is supposed to improve the products they will eventually sell or services they will offer and the money will be invested in their plants and keep their workers employed and have a trickle down effect into the economy at large.
Celene Dion or the Medium range passenger jetliner, concert or railway track, Federal Provincial or municipal government it just doesn’t matter.
If business’s can not survive on their own then they shouldn’t. And with the HRM operating with projected operating deficit of $11.8 million this fiscal year you would think that the city could find a better use for these funds.
Hmmm, isn’t Halifax one of those municipalities that continues to whine to the federal government that it doesn’t get enough money.
What a crock!
Since when? There is no 'corporation' here.
A payment to a corporation to keep functioning is FAR different than a $2 a night hotel tax which then goes towards special events which benefits that industry. I don't even see how they can be compared. That's like saying that if you support paying Bombardier then you 'must support' paying money to fix roads, or hire police, or hire doctors, simply because of the common factor that it is a government that is giving money to somebody else for a service.
So like I say, if THIS is the 'worst kind of corporate welfare', namely, a transaction which doesn't involve corporations at all, then its a pretty strange argument. It's not even close to being the same as the federal government handing out a cheque, not remotely.
IF the tax did not exist, then there would be no special events fund, and no big concerts to bring names and increase tourism to Halifax. That means that hotels, who put on the tax would lose out as well as those who pay the tax in order to see concerts like this.
So like Eugene says, everybody wins.
For Bombardier it is FAR different, not even the same ball park. Even forgetting for the moment the complicated arguments as to whether it actually 'harms the market' (without a subsidy Bombardier could pack up to Mexico, build there for far less and all those canadian jobs would be gone),
there is the point about equal division of federal funds.
We've had this argument before, Quebec and Ontario get subsidies for their main industries, while the maritimes gets bubkus, gets more money for EI and health care (which, to be fair, have been employing more people in the past and present).
In the Bombardier case canadian taxpayers are paying for a corporation that doesn't benefit them at all, unless they are in that area working for Bombardier, and the deal may be so secret that much of the money could prop up investors and executive salaries-in other words could be just another corruption vehicle. In fact, you could call it Harper's sponsorship scandal, go and find out how many people working and investing in Bombardier are now making party contributions (or at least votes). Same thing, except instead of getting the money from the company, it comes from the owners.
So that is way different. Like I've said, even the taxpayer association LIKES these kinds of taxes, where its low and spread out, where it doesn't 'hit' one group too hard, and when the money goes specifically and transparantly (may be arguable) into a fund that directly serves those paying the tax.
So guys like taxpayersnb should be PRAISING this, should be saying "why aren't more taxes used like this one". Most people would have no problem paying taxes if they could see where it went and see the results clearly instead of it going into a vague system which is closed off to scrutiny.
In fact, thats exactly what the government should be doing, because it would get rid of a lot of arguments. Even guys like NBT have no problem paying taxes for more military and police spending. I personally don't like that, I want mine going to social services. So by simply sending back a form saying "we've used your taxes for X..." would go a long way.
The crux, of course, is how people define "essential services". I get nothing from the medical system, and I get nothing from paying into education. But everybody has a different idea of what is essential. Like I said, the only people here who have a right to complain are those who visit Halifax, and they can quite easily avoid the tax altogether-just don't go.
This is tax with a choice,whereas I get no choice when my tax dollars go to Bombardier or for any other corporate welfare. That choice is a HUGE distinction and makes them not the same at all.
This is bad on so many levels. Firstly, we find out that they are taxing a constituency that is the bread and butter of economic development in Nova Scotia...tourist and convention goers.
Now I know some would say that tourism is a sign that your economy is weak anyway, but you have to wonder if that tax was necessary since the reality is that tourism has been struggling significantly lately.
Secondly, if your message at the Canadian Federation of Municipalities was that you are strapped for cash, then this sure isn't a way to demonstrate that fact. Most fiscally responsible governments whose infrastructure is aging don't go out and waste important funds on millionaire singers while drawing a profit. it make s no sense.
Though I'm not a big fan of Dion, I will admit that her concert will likely draw a good crowd and turn a profit, not to mention, benefit the city economically for a couple of days. But that's not the point of this post.
In other words, what I am trying to say is that local governments should not be in the business of hosting concerts to make a profit, they should be focusing on providing fire, police, snow clearing, etc. with the money collected from the taxes levied.
Moreover, if the special event is such a money maker, then why does the City of Halifax need to use taxpayers money to put it on? Shouldn't a private concert promoter with a capitalist mentality want to put on this concert?
The bottom line is that money which was collected could have been used more wisely to upgrade infrastructure rather than to host a Celine Dion concert. Let the money loving concert promoters deal with the cost that come with holding an event such as this. An event, btw, which will likely turn a profit.
I mean honestly, isn't that what business is all about?
Again, if tourism is suffering, it certainly isn't because of a $2 a night tax. Tourism suffers for all kinds of reasons, but find me one person who says "I'm not going to Halifax because I'll pay $14 in a tax over the course of the week".
With the dollar so high, there definitely will be an effect on tourism, probably moreso with the new american passport restrictions. THOSE have a big effect because a vacation in Canada now vs. ten years ago will almost literally cost you double.
That's why this tax makes sense, because its concerts like this that have been PROVEN to bring in tourists, and like I said, most will be from other atlantic provinces. So for Halifax this is a win win, but people who have to pay that $4 extra to go to this concert, if they are staying overnight, may well grouse about it-but then at least they get to see the concert. And again, Halifax council isn't making policy to help out Cape Breton or New Brunswickers.
So again, this makes perfect sense, this is the kind of tax that should be applied all over the place. That's why I'm making this argument, because quite literally if you can't see the value in a tax that makes good economic sense, then there is really no reasoning with such people. There is virtually NOTHING that can be said to compromise, which of course ends the discussion.
Virtually every municipality in the country is having a problem with infrastructure, some more than others, however, imagine telling tourists that the measly tax you are imposing does nothing even for industry you are in. THAT is how you can guarantee to irk tourists.
So milel are these Hoteliers owned by the province? No, they aren't they are corporations either big or small.
NB's point is a good one as well.
If this thing will raise so much money then why on earth is Halifax, or more rightly why are the business's of Halifax not putting it on to make money for themselves.
But wait a minute, why should they, after all, they can depend on these taxes to pay for what they should have to pay for themselves. They can rely on the municipal government of Halifax to increase their profits that much more. What a scam! All the profit, none of the work.
The 13 million paid out to Bombardier wasn't to keep the corporation functioning, Bombardier operates in the black to the tune of billions a year.
Your claim that without this money there would be no big name concerts in Halifax is a crock. There are plenty of big name Bands that go to Halifax. I don't even live there anymore but a cursory look at the web tells me that Nickelback and Finger 11 were there just this year.
Equal division of federal funds?
So now your excuse is that if it's ok for Ontario its ok for Haifax? Wow, talk about completely missing the point... IT is not ok for anyone!!!
Bombardier doesn't benefit anyone at all??? Talk about sweeping generalizations! Bombardier is just as much a part of the economy of Quebec as the port of Halifax is part of N.S's Do you think that somehow because the company operates in Que that there is some sort of magical economic bubble keeping it from contributing to the country?
It's obvious that you (mikel) and I are arguing this point from diametrically opposed ends of the spectrum but let me ask you this...
Do you honestly believe that the Celene Dion concert would not have made enough money for an event promoter to host on his own? If the answer is NO then you should ask yourself why public money needed to be spent at all.
Where is the spirit of entrepreneurship in Halifax? Why are businessmen relying on the crutch of public money to put on this show?
The answer is... because you let them.
It's easy money and if you think that this will produce a large windfall for Halifax you are probably wrong. Most of the concert goers will be from the city itself. The other most significant portion will be from the immediate area and will drive home once the concert is open without spending more than a couple of bucks on parking.
The big winners, just as you pointed out with the Bombardier analogy will be the concert promoters, Celine Dion of course (one of the richest women in show business) and the owner/operator of the Metro Center.
It's really sad that people think that business' should be encouraged (bribed) to do what they are designed to do in the first place... namely make money!
The answer isn't always 'because you let them', it is often 'because you want them to'.
That's not true about being diametrically opposed, unless you happen to think there should be no government whatsoever.
That is not the popular view, in fact its been years that people have listed 'less taxes' as even a prime consideration during elections. Taxes are useful because they are cost effective for building a society. I didn't say Bombadier was 'useless for everybody', I said it was for anybody not connected with the company, like out east.
However, as for the 'this is wrong no matter where you do it', that's not quite true, and even this website is quite inconsistent in that regard, we virtually never hear about Irving companies who get vast subsidies, far more than any of these penny ante programs, or even multimillion dollar ones.
So IF only Halifax patrons go see it, thats even better, because they don't pay the tax AT ALL. By putting up this money they get cheaper tickets so that would make Haligonians even HAPPIER.
However, the evidence is far different, Celine Dion is one of those big name performers, in a far different league than Nickelback. She's at the level of the ROlling Stones where people DO travel long distances to see them. At the Rolling Stones concert there were people and deals made from all across canada, ironically Nova Scotia's ED team sealed the deal with RIM at the Rolling Stones concert in Moncton.
BUt again, these hotels are corporations, but THEY don't pay the tax, the people who stay there do. No doubt IF a concert promoter had booked Celine for Halifax then they wouldn't have needed to step in, however, that didn't happen.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home