Say goodbye to the museum, off to China we skip.

I’m with Seamutt: if all they save by clawing back on non-profits is 33 grand, then start by canceling this BS trip and put that money towards the difference.

If we do not seek outside the regular commercial market place, eventually we will not be able to support our economy. The presence of these people going to China and glad handing likely will not result in a immediate contract. however, it does make the difference to the people wanting to make the deals. It shows to the consumers in China, that yes, we supportr our local business even at the municipal level.

However, it is of tremendous benefit for the city officials to go. perhaps, the participants should have to pay a percentage of the trip. Even if it is 15% of the cost of the trip.

All the Mines, Lumber Co’s, Pulp and Paper Industry, etc; in BC sell their products around the world, and they do so without any help from local politicians.

To suggest that a newly elected Mayor and Council can go to China, meet with like minded officials and make a difference in how we do business is laughable.

Our biggest customers are the United States, and Japan. Maybe the Mayor and Council should be going to Washington, or Tokyo to try and sell them products.

The Mayor and Council have plenty of work to do for the local taxpayers, and shouldnt be meddling where they dont belong.

Vote yourself a raise, hire personal assistant , holiday I Ireland, china, etc. sounds like a dream job, where do I apply? Local govt is a joke. That money should be spent here, say on road repairs. Made a huge mistake voting for ms green

Don’t get me wrong I know we need some of the charities and non-profits but they need to pull their share of raising funds rather than depending on city taxpayers to foot the bills. No different than businesses – if you cannot get the support than maybe it is time to move on or join forces.

Over the years charities have been increasing due to government cutbacks- maybe we should look at combining some of the organizations instead of competing.

Is the trip to China one way. Let’s hope.

Bankrupt the city and then fly off as astute business people. Council at its best.

If this is such a grand idea how come the business community does not rally around and pay for the trip, oh silly me they are always holding their collective hands out. Could this also not be a conflict of interest for the mayor considering her business?

Ahhh, why do we need a bigger business base, not for the businesses already in place they will find a way. Its for our children and their children.

As we get older, we forget how we got to where we are! Somebody left the door open for us.

SO let me get this straight. They provide tax breaks for large corporations, lower the tax rate for industry and business and say hands off any potential restraint on IPG BUT they give the full speed ahead signal to reduce the tax exemptions for charities and non profits?

Kinda tells us of the priorities of those who now have a firm grip on power at city hall.

It is unfortunate and short sighted of the City to try to reduce their deficit by offloading it onto charitable organizations in the voluntary sector. This is exactly the kind of behaviour that the municipality complains bitterly about when the Federal or Provincial governments do it to them.

The difference that it will make to the city amounts to $33,000; an amount that is not material in the scale of their expenditures. The difference that it will make to the charitable organizations that are harmed, however, will be felt right across the community in reduced services. Many economists have pointed out that the voluntary sector routinely leverages a dollar in investment into many dollars in services; the corollary is that the City will be doing many dollars of damage to the community for every dollar in tax increases.

According to the City’s Sustainable Finance Policy 9, “permissive tax exemption is a means for Council to support organizations within the community which further Council’s objectives of enhancing quality of life (economic, social, and cultural) and delivering services economically.” It is clear that this recommendation to increase taxation of the local voluntary sector will inflict significant damage on the City’s own objectives.

The City administration’s rationale of “for reducing the total value of the exemptions to be at or under 1.50% of the annual municipal tax levy” is arbitrary and without any sound economic foundation. 1.50% is not a magic number; it does not make sense to inflict damage on one of the most productive, but paradoxically fragile, sectors of our community with this capricious edict. Prince George needs it’s vibrant and industrious voluntary sector— The City administration needs to find ways of leveraging the capacity of this economic sector in pursuit of their stated goal of “delivering services economically.”

Peter Thompson

It is unfortunate and short sighted of the City to try to reduce their deficit by offloading it onto charitable organizations in the voluntary sector. This is exactly the kind of behaviour that the municipality complains bitterly about when the Federal or Provincial governments do it to them.

The difference that it will make to the city amounts to $33,000; an amount that is not material in the scale of their expenditures. The difference that it will make to the charitable organizations that are harmed, however, will be felt right across the community in reduced services. Many economists have pointed out that the voluntary sector routinely leverages a dollar in investment into many dollars in services; the corollary is that the City will be doing many dollars of damage to the community for every dollar in tax increases.

According to the City’s Sustainable Finance Policy 9, “permissive tax exemption is a means for Council to support organizations within the community which further Council’s objectives of enhancing quality of life (economic, social, and cultural) and delivering services economically.” It is clear that this recommendation to increase taxation of the local voluntary sector will inflict significant damage on the City’s own objectives.

The City administration’s rationale of “for reducing the total value of the exemptions to be at or under 1.50% of the annual municipal tax levy” is arbitrary and without any sound economic foundation. 1.50% is not a magic number; it does not make sense to inflict damage on one of the most productive, but paradoxically fragile, sectors of our community with this capricious edict. Prince George needs it’s vibrant and industrious voluntary sector— The City administration needs to find ways of leveraging the capacity of this economic sector in pursuit of their stated goal of “delivering services economically.”

Peter Thompson