Don't read this if you have high blood pressure. The following new taxes may be coming to a city near you, or maybe - your city: Road taxes, more hotel taxes, extra fuel taxes, entertainment taxes, resort taxes, parking stall taxes, and more user fees.

The B.C. Liberals have just released their draft Community charter, and at 134 pages, there is plenty for local ratepayers to sift through. Some ideas are excellent: no municipality would be forced to merge with another unless it first approves the "marriage." That means no forced amalgamations a la Ontario or as happened in B.C. in the early 1970s.

But here's the "but": Under the draft legislation, cities will receive new and expanded powers to tax. In theory, giving cities more freedom in what and how they tax is laudable. For example, property taxes are profit-insensitive and income-insensitive. A small business that loses money one year still must pay property taxes; a widowed grandmother on a low-income, but in a home she and her husband bought 50 years ago, must pay the same property tax as the two-income yuppie couple next door with a similarly-valued house.

In addition, property taxes burden locals instead of spreading around the tax pain. So, your irritating brother-in-law who arrives every August for two weeks and invades your home, pool, and fridge contributes virtually nothing to the local tax base. Thus, shifting the tax burden from property to hotel taxes or toll roads (providing they are new roads, not existing ones) might be worth doing. After all, Albertans who pay a toll on the Coquihalla highway help relieve British Columbians of paying for all of its upkeep.

But the key word is "shifting." And this is where taxpayers should protest. Municipal politicians are not salivating at the prospect of all these new taxing powers so they can simply shift the tax burden from property owners to consumers via a municipal GST (lotsa luck on that one Mr. Mayor). They want new taxing powers, presumably, so they can, at some point, jack up their overall revenues, i.e., the tax burden. If voters first approve such overall and substantial increases, fine. But there's no provision for that in the draft charter, and in fact the number of issues on which city council must take to local taxpayers is being reduced, not expanded. (More on this in next week's column.)

Also of concern: Under the proposed charter, cities can give business-specific tax exemptions to just about any company. (There are three criteria but you can drive a truck through them.) For example, a city could grant a tax exemption to any business wanting to expand. "Hands up" all who don't wish to expand.
General tax relief is a good idea; discriminatory tax exemptions are not. Imagine a scenario where Joe's Widget Factory is barely profitable after ten years worth of hard work, borrowed money, and some of his own money put into the business. But at least he's profitable.

Meanwhile, across town, Bill's Widget Factory is on the verge of bankruptcy. Bill makes the case to council that he needs a tax exemption to survive and council grants it. How is this fair to Joe, who also sells widgets but still faces the same taxes as before - who may now lose market share and himself become unprofitable And does it make any difference if Bill is in Vernon and Joe is in Kelowna or Surrey Local governments must be neutral in their taxation of enterprise, i.e., everyone in their jurisdiction faces the same rates and rules. Anything else is unfair to all those who won't receive a tax exemption.

Taxpayers have until this summer to talk to their MLAs about this draft legislation. To start, tell MLAs to forget about discriminatory tax exemptions. And coming next week: Why haven't the Liberals provided local voters with a guaranteed say on new or expanded taxes