"Tina Lange, says the idea is brilliant"

??????

A buck from the government is a buck from the government, no matter how you slice it. Whether you can reduce your tax payable by $1,000 or get a check for $1,000, it still comes out of the same government coffers.

I would call that anything but a brilliant idea.

I want a $1000 to cut down the tree damaged with all that wet snow on it.

How about we wait till the trees fall down onto our houses, cars, etc. Then the insurance companies will pay for it.

If they were like ICBC, they would pay for a prevention program to reduce expected losses in such events. Of course, insurance would go up, so it is really the same as getting money from the government who would need to raise taxes or reduce other services.

"A Kamloops City Councilor thinks residents in his city should be able to deduct from their income tax, the cost of removing Pine Beetle trees from their property."

Subsidize the rich and the poor guy that can't afford to remove his trees much less have the income to write of the expense against is left to fend for s/heself. Doesn't sound brilliant to me. Sounds more like it defeats the whole purpose of government funding.

Oh yes the rich are always getting subsidized... Lets say for example I pay $50K a year in income tax and someone less fortunate pays 5K a year. We drive the same roads, our kids go to the same schools, and we go to the same hospitals, who is exactly subsidizing who? Secondly the tax deduction could work if the 'rich' spend several thousands of there own money whacking down the tree's of those less fortunate looking for the tax deduction. For example if I spent 120K helping the poor get rid of the tree's I could get away with paying no tax. That sounds like a win-win

We seem to have a lot of assumptions here.

(1) The **Poor** own houses and have lots of trees on their property, especially dead pines.
I kind of doubt it.

(2) When was the last time you have heard the phrase **Brilliant and Councillor** in the same sentence.


Since the City has now got themselves a TFL within the City limits, and are in the process of falling, and I assume selling all the timber they harvest to mills in the area, how difficult would it be for them to remove trees from Private Property at **cost** and allow them to keep and sell these trees along with the other wood they are harvesting.

The only scary thing about that idea is that **Cost** for the City could very well be 3 times higher than cost for a contractor. In any event if the City could do it for a resonable cost, then that would be the best way to go. Maybe they could do it just to get the timber. Obviously that is what they are doing on City property.

I am not sure if they are paying stumpage or not, however Im sure that the Provincial Government could forego stumpage on Private Property and the City could harvest the wood.

This would call for some progressive thinking, but it would solve the problem.

Zoom it sounds like you are talking about a tax credit, and not a tax deduction. The councilor in the article was talking about a tax deduction. Big difference between the two.

A tax deduction comes from your net taxable income. A tax credit comes off of your net tax owing.

A tax credit could be abused to eliminate taxes owing with inflated costs creating a tax avoidance scheme that costs more than a simple tree removal program would in the first place. Hence, defeats the original purpose of removing trees for the most economical value to the government. There is no difference between a tax credit and the government simply writing a check other than the process for paperwork involved and the fact that low income families might not have a tax owing to use the credit against.

Again low income families would be the ones that need assistance to remove these trees if we are all to buy the fact these trees are a danger and need to be removed. Of course rich people should also recieve the same benefits. Complicating the tax code does not help anyone IMO and is counter productive.

Now the tax deduction, which the councilor proposed is also a bad idea for the same reasons a tax credit is. Low income families simply do not have the Net Taxable Income to be able to write off these costs against and recieve compensation for the removal of the trees. Therefore they pay 100% of the cost of tree removal, and another family with a high Net Taxable Income where they can write it off against would be subsidized by government for their tree removal. It makes no sense to set up a system that reimburses rich people and not low income people for a hazzard that is considered a life and property threatening danger.

A persons income should not be a factor when the government is setting up a program that deals with public safety. Tax deduction and tax credit schemes will not meet the requirements of a program like this because it is discriminatory against the low income family. Period IMO.

LOL zoom your idea is funny. You currently pay $50K a year in tax, but to avoid this tax bill you are willing to pay $120K to remove your poor neighbors trees so you don't have to pay $50 K in taxes. You should check your math or you won't be the rich guy for long.

Palopu, would you consider a family with 4 children living in say Lakewood subdivision, living on $50,000 a year a poor family or a rich family. You say poor people don't have pine tree problems so I'm trying to figure out what part of town the pine trees are attacking in your opinion.

Chadermando. A family with four Children and an income of $50,000.00 per year could not be considered as poor. I dont have all the particulars on child tax credits, allowances, the new $100.00 per month for children under six, etc; however these people would not fall under the accepted term **poor** IMO poor people are those who earn $20,000.00 per year or less. This would be the Gross Earnings for a person working 40 hours per week at an hourly rate of $8.00 per hour. Probably (2) jobs at 20 hours per week. They cannot afford to own a house, and therefore would not be concerned about tree removal as it would be the landlords responsibility.

Once you get to or beyond $50,000 per year you are no longer **poor** however you may very well be **cash strapped* depending on how you manage your money.

I agree that there should be some way to help some people remove dead trees, however how do you do it without setting up a situation where this money can be exploited.

We presently have programs where people abuse the system because they can.

(1) ICBC (Scams)
(2) Medicare (Numerous usless trips to the Doctor)
(3) Legal Aid. After it was in for a few years it was determined that the majority of people who used Legal Aid made in excess of $40,000.00 per year.This was back in the 70/80's I dont know if it still applies.

(4) Our welfare system. People have been scamming this system for years. A number of years ago it was common for the same people to be on welfare in different Cities and Different Provinces.

(5) Food Banks. There are a small number of people who utilize food banks with an income in the area of $50,000.00 per year. There are also a number of people on Welfare, who smoke, and drink, and gamble, and then get their food from the food bank. While I dont begrudge them the food, I have to beleive that if this food was not available maybe they would cut back on their vices.

I dont want to paint all people with the same brush, however unless you can come up with a way to ensure that only those who cannot afford to have the trees removed themselves get assistance, then you will have to pay for all removal, and now for the Province you are looking a Millions and maybe Billions of dollars. This is hardly a solution.

Chadermando, in most instances for any donation to charity etc. The tax saved is a lot less than the amount donated. But if it a good cause, and the money is not wasted then it is worth it. The price one needs to pay to help out, and if one can save some tax while doing great. So if I was to 'kick in' a little to help the family that can not afford the 2-3K to make their yard safer and get a deduction would that not be great for all involved. Safer yard for the family, tax deduction for zoom.

Zoom, in that context it would be great for all involved. Realistically though I don't see how it would work. Who ensures the tax deduction is legit, and that the work was performed? How does a recipient find a donor willing to subsidize them for a small tax break? What if you do not have enough donors, do only the recipients with connections get help? Lots of loop holes IMO for abuse, even if the thought was a good intention thought.

Palopu, I look at it as a small family with a modest income has personal, spousal, and eligible dependant tax credits that hypothetically could bring their net taxable income to zero, while still owning a home for the family. How does this family benefit from a tax deduction or tax credit scheme? This small family would swallow the cost whole, while the guy with a tax bill across town gets his tree removal paid for by the government.

IMO the only solution is an approved contractor program for pine(only) tree removal for residents only that is paid for by a natural disaster fund. Absentee landlords that do not remove their trees on their own would have the trees removed and the bill added to their property tax bill at the end of the year as a cost of doing business and thus a tax deduction on their income tax bill. It is simple, but effective, and leaves no room for fraud or victims of circumstance.

Also you don't have to rewrite the tax code for my solution.

Did anyone see the houses taken out by fallen trees in the recent wind storms in the Lower Mainland? That is why this program would be so important IMO.