The MoneyReady Forum
Member
avatar
Joined:
Posts: 58

I short-changed the Basic Tax Calculator's Alberta tax a wee bit. It calculates close to $575. But that's still substantially less than the $2056 that I think it should be. What am I missing?

Administrator
avatar
Joined:
Posts: 230

You’re right, there was an issue with AB. I had missed that the restoring of indexation had been made retroactive for 2022.

I’ve checked the new tax calculation of the MRA and for 2022 with 30K interest and 40K of dividends it gets Prov: (AB) $1,568.60.

This includes the Climate incentive of $490, so without it, it’s $2058.60. Taxtips.ca says $2056 but they tend to round before each calculation.

Member
avatar
Joined:
Posts: 58

I didn’t think about the Climate Action Incentive payment.  I suppose I should have read the manual a little more thoroughly before submitting a comment.  But for me this raises a follow-up question.  Should the CAI payment be included in the tax calculation?  My opinion here leans towards no.  I’ll try to explain why. 
The first reason is that I consider the CAI payment to be short lived, at least relative to a 20 to 40 year financial projection.   This is just a guess, of course, because it’s impossible to predict what the existing government will do in the future, let alone trying to predict what a different federal government might do, or even a provincial government trying to distance itself from Ottawa.  If we have a rightward shift in the federal government, the Incentive might be eliminated along with the carbon tax itself.  If we stay the course or veer left, the payment will likely be eliminated or reduced over time without an associated change in carbon pricing.  Either way, I think the incentive is short lived.   I get that I’m attempting to predict the future and doing so is not a sound basis for a future-looking software algorithm.  But, when I compare the known degree of near-term tax error with the CAI payment NOT included versus the probable degree of long-term tax error with the CAI payment included, I tend to favour the former.
The second reason is that I don’t really consider the CAI payment to be a true tax component.  It’s included in the tax schedule and it is deducted from the tax owing.  But in my mind, it’s there only as a matter of government convenience, or as a means to eliminate a separate submission and payment process.  Convenience aside, IMO, the “correct” tax amount is the tax without the CAI payment deducted.
The question, then, is: How would I propose the CAI payment be included in the projection?  I'd suggest that it should simply be deducted from expenses.  The climate tax itself is essentially a consumption tax, so in my mind the refund that offsets the consumption should occur on the “consumption” side (i.e., expenses).  I’m not suggesting that the MRA should reduce expenses by the CAI payment in its calculation.  I think that would cause a lot of confusion in the numbers.  I think a better solution is for the user to deduct the CAI payment from expenses before he/she/they enters expenses into the app, assuming he/she/they believes the amount of the incentive is meaningful with respect to total expenses.  
To make a long story short, if that’s still possible, can I add to the wish list with a suggestion that a tick-box option be given to the user to defeat the CAI payment?  While this adds to the programming burden, it allows people like me to opt out.   Failing that, my suggestion would be for the core tax calculation to not include the payment and it be left to the user to integrate it into the expenses if it’s important.  My rationale is that I’m just not convinced that including the payment over the long term offers a better degree of projection accuracy than NOT including it.
Just my 2 cents.

(After composing this e-mail I reflected on it a bit.  How important is this, really.  A legitimate reply might be, "What's all the fuss about?  It's only a few hundred dollars and likely just noise in the overall calculation."  True that.)

Member
avatar
Joined:
Posts: 58

LOL! If it makes you feel any better, the program just tacks on the climate incentive to reduce the final tax bill, it’s not part of the calculation. Given its uncertain future, it’s not indexed (that’s what I do to uncertain credits). So to negate it, just add a non-indexed expense of $490.00.