|
Marcus Johnsen - 
April 26, 2019 |
|
|
|
|
Dael Olsonberg - 
March 21, 2019 |
|
|
|
|
Eric Gent - 
June 26, 2018 |
|
|
|
|
Corey Shoemaker - 
April 17, 2018 |
|
|
|
|
Derek Tolmie - 
April 6, 2018 |
|
|
|
|
Jatinbhai Patel - 
December 29, 2017 |
|
|
|
|
Matthew Jones - 
March 31, 2017 |
|
|
|
|
David Labey - 
March 28, 2017 |
|
|
|
|
Matt Stanton - 
October 18, 2016 |
|
|
|
|
Alexander Ducic - 
July 7, 2016 |
|
|
|
|
Sheena Snook - 
June 28, 2016 |
A relevant topic these days. |
|
|
|
Kara Hobbs - 
June 24, 2016 |
|
|
|
|
Eric Neudorf - 
June 14, 2016 |
The report is a helpful first glance at total tax burdens, although the report would be more useful if it had a more nuanced methodology.
In the report, tax burdens are calculated as a share of gross business output. Such an approach captures the size of the burden of taxation, but it has not been linked empirically to how taxation affects behaviour. Using this approach assumes that subsidies and taxes are shared across all sectors, giving provinces that are more dependent on subsidies a more favourable tax rating than they might otherwise receive.
Although the report describes all taxes payed by businesses as a “burden on businesses,” the actual burden of each of these corporate taxes is shifted in part to investors, workers, and consumers.
|
|
|
|
R. Panesar - 
May 31, 2016 |
|
|
|
|
Logan Fan - 
May 14, 2016 |
Research + Extremely thorough, above expectations for such a report, pushes rating up to a 3/5. + Attention to detail, including the components of the Property Tax Base Project files to indirectly deduce residential and non-residential property tax revenues, input tax credit for zero-rated inputs in business tax returns, and more. + Introduction of the concept of implicit sales tax rates. + Updated info on Alberta Personal Income Tax Rate being no longer flat.
Knowledge Translation - Business/Commercial side Individuals/Personal side: industry usage is Commercial vs Personal. It could increase credibility to consistently use the same terms throughout the report (including titles and headings). - Visuals could be made of methodology concepts such as the above to aid quick understanding, but were not. - Methodology map or process modeling visual could help readers better understand both the analytical process and the knowledge obtained from the research process. - Ranking for the provinces were mentioned throughout the analysis, but there were no visuals to actually portray a ranking. A list such as university rankings could benefit the readers understanding, especially at beginning of chapters, or below the executive summary. - Implicit sales tax rate is an excellent and important concept, but undefined in Glossary of Terms or elsewhere throughout the report. - There is a general lack of both data visualization and concept visualization.
Information Management - Credibility: Percentage total % does not add up to 100, for Table 3, Ontario (comes up to 101, despite stating 100 for all). This can lose significant credibility for the report depending on stakeholder. Need to check the numbers before publishing. This is akin to telling people that 1+10 = 10. - Organization: Methodology pieces are spread out before Chapters and in each Chapter without any methodology headings. Locating summary methodology can make readers feel like collecting pieces to a larger puzzle. - Organization: Limitations are spread out throughout the report as opposed to a collective section dedicated to limitations. Example of unexpected confession in middle of report: "Refundable tax credits were not considered in the calculation of these ratios because of the lack of detailed data." This presents a significant distraction to some of the findings, outcomes, and a collective understanding of the summary process. Moreoever, it gives a feelings of being a Disclaimer to the findings. - Organization: Rationale for methodology and analysis is spread out throughout the report, and can distract the readers from the findings, as well as a cohesive understanding of the rationale for the analysis (ranking, evaluation, etc). Example: "The main difference between this ranking and the ranking based on the net tax burden, excluding property taxes, is the fact that Newfoundland and Labrador’s ranking improves, moving down from third to sixth place, as the province with the sixth-highest net business tax burden ratio" was inserted into the middle of Provincial Business Tax Burden (Chapter 2) without any Analysis Rationale heading. This could give off potential credibility warning flags for having the need to justify limitations subsequent to the presentation of local sectional findings.
Format + Some charts, such as Chart 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 14, 22 are very well done, aiding the understanding of multi-layered comparisions. + Excellent citations throughout. - Glossary of Terms: using 100% of margin as opposed to 60% could improve readability. This becomes more noticeable for pages where charts uses 100% margin while text stays at 60%, with the rest of the page blank. - Glossary of Terms: bolding the terms could improve readability. - Glossary of Terms: indenting terms to the left of definition paragraphs could improve readability when not black/default font colour. - Inconsistent Significant Numbers: Table 1 & 2, etc. Table 1: 9.975 could be rounded to 10, or display other PST values with appropriate significant digits. This could reduce the perceived mathematical credibility of the report. For Table 2, e.g. Canada is not a Province: need to be displayed at bottom or top of table, as opposed to the middle. The values 19 and 17 should be displayed in similar fashion as the other values, e.g. 19.0 and 17.0. - Inconsistent argument language such as at Page 41: "Interestingly, British Columbia..." and right after, "This is not surprising, since...". Interesting findings means unexpected and notable. Throwing rollercoaster arguments against own findings can confuse readers and potential stakeholders looking for findings, as opposed to literary drama. - Conclusion section: Includingj a knowledge summary visual, or ranking visual for the provinces could better highlight the findings related to the report's main objective, as opposed to pagragraphs of a small essay.
Excellent summary knowledge of a subject topic is nearly impact-less if it could not be communicated or shared with other human beings effectively. I can see that the research has been extensive. However, the presentation and knowledge sharing is poorly done. A great report can sell a rotten apple to a complex audience. A mediocre report cannot sell 70 pages of fresh apples to a starving audience. Knowledge Management and Information Management training could greatly improve the capability and ability to leverage the findings of a thorough research to maximum exposure and impact. An historical example of this is Edison vs Tesla in the spread of electricity and lightbulbs.
|
|
|
|
Sandy Besporstov - 
May 13, 2016 |
|
|
|
|
Jules Komguep - 
May 13, 2016 |
This is very instructive and helps understand the subject. |
|
|
|
Malika Tarzalt - 
May 13, 2016 |
Excellent, very useful. |
|
|
|
Stephen Dale - 
May 13, 2016 |
|
|
|
|
Stuart Kidd - 
May 13, 2016 |
Excellent publication with bibliography to check out calculations as well. |
|
|
|
George McLellan - 
May 13, 2016 |
|
|
|
|
Brian Christie - 
May 13, 2016 |
Useful for anyone considering a move/transfer or retirement. Helpful for fiscal planners. |
|
|
|
David Bailey - 
May 13, 2016 |
|
|
|
|
Brooke Sykes - 
May 13, 2016 |
|
|
|
|
Christina Gillie - 
May 13, 2016 |
|
|
|
|
Micheal Moroskat - 
May 13, 2016 |
|
|
|
|
Christy Valente - 
May 13, 2016 |
Excellent. I value the Conference Boards reports and research! |
|
|
|
Serge Cormier - 
May 13, 2016 |
I found this report to be quite useful. We need more information like this one..thank you! |
|
|
|
Paul Macneil - 
May 3, 2016 |
|
|
|
|
Kevin Musial - 
May 2, 2016 |
|
|
|