Did you ever think that the keep-taxes-high-and-raise-'em-higher crowd might give up after the fall of the Berlin Wall Fat chance. For example, one recent study serves as an unpleasant reminder that envy dressed up as economic policy is still alive, kicking, and cherry picking statistics.

There are many ways to measure taxes, but one of the more careless ways is to swallow government budget figures whole. Unfortunately, the study on taxes from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives did precisely that.

The NDP's Budget 2000, reproduced in the Alternatives study, conveniently failed to include tobacco taxes (much higher in BC than in Alberta, or Ontario where they are one-quarter BC's rates.) The comparison also low-balled the amount of fuel bought in a year, at least in comparison to Alberta and Ontario budget estimates. And in addition, the BC government's figures include property taxes, a chunk of which comes from municipal decisions, not provincial ones.

The effect of such cherry picking is, naturally, to underestimate the tax difference between BC and the other two have provinces, Alberta and Ontario. In the BC government's inter-provincial tax comparisons, a two income family of four earning $30,000 would pay $411 less in tax in Alberta compared to BC, but $512 more in Ontario.

But what happens when you use different, and arguably more accurate assumptions For example, remove property tax (since it is unlikely a $30,000 income with two kids in Toronto has a mortgage, and besides - it is mainly a municipal tax.) Also, use Alberta assumptions on the amount of fuel people buy, and that $30,000 couple with two kids actually would pay $680 less in Alberta and $611 less in Ontario compared to BC, or $880 and $1,028 less respectively if one smokes.

Here is something else to consider when looking at inter-provincial tax comparisons. Most neglect hidden taxes, and for good reason - they're embarrassing to the BC government. For example, Crown corporations will hand over almost $1.5 billion to the provincial government this budget year. That's up almost $700 million from 1991 and over $1.1 billion higher compared to 1985. When you examine the "other revenues" column of provincial budgets, it is the same story: The government took in under $1 billion a year on average until 1987, but that jumped to $1.8 billion by last year.

Or how about the government practice of shifting expenditures and tax hikes to new Crown Corporations Take TransLink (please.) By 2002, and thanks to higher fares and a new auto tax, the lower mainland's new road and transit bureaucracy will take in $300 million more in operating and taxation revenues when compared with 1999. By 2005, they will take in $450 million more annually. That won't show up in official provincial budget comparisons of the tax load between provinces - but those TransLink fare hikes and new auto taxes are real taxes that will be paid by half of BC.

The problem with any tax comparison is that it can be cherry-picked to prove a particular point, but miss the whole picture, which is this: Tax Freedom Day was May 3 in 1961, June 9 in 1981, and July 1 in 1999. Only Quebec has a later Tax Freedom Day. (Ironically, the Atlantic provinces have a much earlier Tax Freedom Day because they get massive transfers from the rest of us.)

I've no doubt that think tanks that base their economic policy on envy hate the Fraser Institute, but so far, Tax Freedom Day is the most comprehensive measure of how much tax citizens pay. Cherry picking statistics, based on the BC government's budget, is invariably too convenient.