‘$0 Labatt has liad to Tay off 70 workers. “Molson is ‘thinking of ranning special ads on ‘ the crisis: Meanwhile, the Liquor’ Branch Says it’s: sending back empties as fast as s they _ come in. if you want to be sure of a few cases for . Christmas, maybe you should check the » contents of your basement right away! sunday news : north shore NEWS - ADVERTISNG “ cuassinen CIRCULATION 980-0511 988-6222 986-1337 1139 Lonsdale Ave:, North Vancouver, B.C. Publisher Peter Speck Associate Publisher Editorin-Crlel Advertising Director Robert Graham Noel Wright Eric Cardwea & Office Administrator Tim Francis /, Bemi Hiiard Faye McCree Managing Editor NewsEditor-' Photography Andy Fraser Cais Uoyd Etsworcth Dickson Administrator North Shore News. sounded i 1969 as an newspater and quaiifhed under Schedwe the Excise Tax Act, is Registration Number Subscriptions $20 pee year, Entire contents © VO70 Neth Shore Free Press Lid, Ad nights reserved INT me THIS PAPER IS RECYCLABLE . manufacturing, es construction. as well as rapid” |) G2 in Calgary.alonen, while _ Bowen Island ‘entitled FIncreases in Ss growth... employment. population, _ and. .:ur- banization, dre enabling: the ‘west to become a mature | As -of . today. 20% of all Canadian industrial . economy. head_offices are-in thé west western — ¢€ anadian- “payments. all Canadians. Ontario’ will no ‘balance: of jo is”: Ndumasiol ; ‘growth. | . shared .. be Jonger be | the ‘self-styled miich.cow WC “onfederation: Also, weslern -economic growth improves Canada’s payments. thereby. lowering our national debt; someday. this could enable us to overcome ‘inflation. _ , Like the. United: States, v we . have three levels of government: but only: one. taxpayer: Yet, ‘oddly enough, we cheer when our municipality passes * the financial buck to the province and nod ap- | proval when the latter screws a few more millions out of Ottawa — blithely ignoring the fact that the money, in whatever guise, will eventually come form exactly the same source: you and me. Reader L. McLarty of recently reminded us of this when he drew our attention to- an article in the September issue of Consumer Reports “Proposition 13: Whoreally won?” Proposition 13, you'll recall, was the famous California tax revolt of 1978 oranized by Howard Jarvis among disenchanted taxpayers. It passed into law by a land- Slide -— causing California's property-tax revenues to be cut by 57 per cent. Very naturally, Proposition 13 was ac-. claimed as a major triumph for the hard-pressed homeowner and the idea has been widely imitated in other states. But the Con- sumer Reports analysis indicates that there's now some very real doubt about the winners. ONLY 24% The analysis makes the following statistical points, based on official government figures. Although Proposition 13 was conceived primarily to’ benefit homeowners, the | dollar figures tell a rather different story. Out of a $7 billion cut in property tax revenucs during year only about $1.7 billion the colorful who. the first \ For (24 per cent} actually went in savings to owner-occupied residences. Nearly $2 billion (about 28. per cent} went to owners. of commercial, ot false. in the: tong: Fun ‘prowth |. means industrial and .. headquari cHics am agricultural property, And ¥% owners of rental property saved another $857 million (about 12 per cent). Who got the remaining 36 percent? Senior governments, that's federal | government collected nearly. “. $1.6 billion in extra taxes. i Califormia state « government an extra $977. The... U.S. nd. the million ~- in both cases because individuals and businesses claimed smaller property-tax deductions when filing their income tax returns and therefore id higher income tax than they would otherwise have done. In summary, the home- owners who sparked Proposition 13° benefited from less than a quarter of the total tax cut and, in many cases, had to pay higher income tax as well. But that's not all. BUSINESS WINS Because of the specific provisions of Proposition 13. fax savings for homeowners will steadily decrease over the years, while the real winner will be business. tax purposes Proposition set the base the value of a private, home at . the 1975-76 level and limited . property tax to 1 per cent of that value, with = future assessment increases limited to 2 ‘per cent a year. The same formula applies to business and industrial properties. However, if you bought .your property after 1975, the value for tax purposes is the purchase price plus 2 per cent a year. So if a house — valued at $50,000 in 1975 sold today for $100,000, its annual property tax bill for, the new owner would promptly rise from about $500 to $1,000. The impact of this becomes clear when you lear that California homes change owners on an average every seven years. So, despite Proposition 13, they are bound to provide an everincreasing proportion of the state's property taxes ° year alter year. as. my the” West — ship: Of” larger" business, industrial and~ farm properties only _ “rarely changes. The majority. of such properties will carry their 1975-76 assessments. plus 2 per cent a year, in- definitely. 18,000 LAID OFF The effect of the tax cuts. on, services, has been tem- porarily mitigated by the state of California's large budget surplus — now being used ‘to provide over’ $4 . billion a year in subsidies to hard-pressed local govern- ments, But. this. obviously can't continue indefinitely. Even with the © subsidies, - most government employees - went without a pay raise last year, and nearly 18, 000 have been laid off. Park ‘upkeep, » public transportation, local ‘health services, sewer maintenance and construction have suffered cutbacks. Library budgets have been slashed by an average of 20 per cent, forcing closures or reduced hours, Meanwhile, user fees have been introduced for such services as garbage collection and park use. - As the’ situation - deteriorates, a point will inevitably be reached, say state officials, where the pressure to raise additional tax income from somewhere will become irresistible. Whatever form that takes -- whatever the name of the government printed on the demand form -- at will still be the same taxpayer who has to footthe bill. An interesting lesson from the Sunshine State for laapayers every here. it ‘becomes more 2