Provincial Haul From the HST

[chilli]

It always stuns me how people can make such simplified conclusions that the HST is bad or good based on how much more the tax has brought in compared to estimates.

Had the number been lower would the anti HST people suddenly say, well it is a good thing look at the numbers - no they wouldn't. Would such a number then give ammo to the pro HST people? No, it shouldn't.

You need to factor in economic activity into the calculations. A tiny percentage change up or down in economic growth has a significant impact on all types of tax revenue. So considering Canada and BC have done far better growth wise than the vast majority of the planet, save up and coming third world nations I would expect higher numbers.

Has anyone here actually done that analysis of economic growth vs revenue projections here? I know the answer.

Have we considered that businesses such as software and film production are huge beneficiaries of the tax and have been hiring like crazy? If you did then when someone gets a job, or a raise or the owners make more profit they...wait for it...spend some of that money. Hold on it gets better. This may come as a shock to most of you but when you spend money, like in a retail store or service establishment...you pay some tax. I know, I know who knew eh?

So if you spend more...you actually get more tax revenue. Stunning isn't it? Well actually you need a double digit IQ to understand this stuff so I get why most people debating the HST can't figure it out.

Now is the HST a panacea that will boom our economy, no it isn't. Are we in a heap of trouble when portable industries like film, software, manufacturing go to jurisdictions with a VAT type tax like Ontario when we don't have it anymore? Yes we are.

Oh and those increased costs people talk about...it is called inflation. Inflation is primarily caused by the creation of money via low interest rates, not tax policy unless your VAT tax is very high. The Europeans pay 20% and we freak out about 12???

By the way a bunch of services I now pay HST on has seen the proprietor in one case lower his price to keep the overall cost the same (fitness membership) and others have seen the normal year to year increase so again no difference in price (yearly sports fees). So the doom and gloom has actually not hit my wallet much.

Feel sorry for the low income families who will lose out on those cheques each month that pay them more than they could ever shell out in any higher tax paid. They lose out no matter how you calculate it.

Okay I am done now. Guess how I voted? No, you can't?

Anidotal evidence of one business owner that you know of passing along the tax savings to his customers - doesn't mean that the majority of businesses in BS are doing it.

In fact quite the opposite.

Anidotal evidence that one, two, or even three particular industries in BC benefits from the new tax doesn't take away from the original problem with the tax - which is that it is a HUGE shift in tax burden from businsses and corporations to the consumer.

Demand comes from consumers - consumers who have disposable income to spend.

If for no other reason any sane person with one brain cell would oppose this tax because of the way it was implemented.

Living in a democratic society YOU have a huge RESPONSIBILITY in how politicians treat their citizens by what you as a voter allow them to get away with.

Too bad, because you, AzianBoy and people like you are the reason why we have
such bad politicians in the first place - you turn a blind eye to their bad behavior and actions and then try to convince the rest of us it's ok.

Peddle your bullshit somewhere else.

I'm not buying it.

 

[whoisjohngalt]

I'm not a douchebag like you who goes around pretending he knows everything and my solution isn't to just accept paying more taxes like you're obviously happy to do.

I know there's waste...and lots of it. But I don't know exactly where to start slashing.

However, it would be nice if people who do know did something about it. As bcneil outlines below it is absolutely clear that there's enormous waste occuring.

No need to get personal here. Why do you always come off so angry? Are you not able to have a rational discussion without getting emotional about it?

Actually, if you knew me then you would know that I am very much in favour of lower taxes and drastic reductions to the size of government. But until we cut spending, we have to pay for the government we have. The HST is a better way of raising money than the PST. Nobody with any real knowledge of tax and economics disputes this. Yes there are some people who are going to be worse off under the HST but they are a very small minority.

 

[agentman]

Vote Libertarian. The following line is an caption from their site.

The BCLP advocates civil liberties, and private property rights, including drug legalization, ending government controls on economic activity, and ending coercive taxation.

http://www.libertarian.bc.ca/

 

[Cock Throppled]

The problem with the whole debate is the numbers, including those from a government I wouldn't trust if they told me water is wet, are all over the place.
Jack Mi tz makes outrageious claims of the benfits of the HST, then the independent commission provides other numbers.

A lot of the HST benefits claimed are economic theories. The biggest supporters are economists - you know, most of the same guys who had no clue world economies were going to collapse in 2008. The same guys helping governments make economic predictions and budgets that, in my lifetime have never come close to projections.

Some of you seem to want the approach of Ireland, which is virtually broke - with a VAT of 21% and corporate tax rate of 12.5%. That sounds like great economic planning. Why not have no corporate taxes and have all the tax burden on consumers?

So, I'm basing my decision of two things - 1. the complete abandonment of democracy in A - committing fraud to get elected and B - not having the guts and integrity to run on an economic policy and 2. my personal experience of losing business and costing me more on a day to day basis and more in the future.

Maybe what's best for the province would be to hold the government accountable and make them be honest and stable and not create thins kind of stress on the economy. Pretty unique thought, huh?

 

[InTheBum]

I can live with that, but the most conservative government in our province is running up deficits, I can pretty guarantee that should the NDP get into power they're only going to spend more. So the political will doesn't seem to exist to spend less.

Cut all govt employee Pensions...simple...done...

 

[Classic]

I can agree with a lot of the negative sentiment here trust me.

I was mighty pissed off on how it was introduced as well, but I have to separate that from my analysis on which version of a sales tax system is better for the whole economy. Yes, not just some industries and again not just considering how expenses rise for consumers. I am looking at the larger picture.

My example was to disprove a major theory put out that nobody will pass on savings which was untrue. How many "we will pay the HST" ads to do you hear? A well known roofing company advertises that prices will go up in 2012 no matter what the tax vote outcome is etc.

My preference is actually very little taxation other than a modest VAT style tax, that would force government to reduce its activities by a drastic margin. Govt in general gets involved in way too much of our life and has to tax us to fund those useless activities. That unfortunately has little public support so I fight a smaller battle on this one.

The vote Libertarian idea is very good.

Cutting govt pensions also good, lowering the numbers of govt employees is the first major start.

And Ireland is broke because they spent like drunken sailors on govt programs that had little if any value which is common worldwide. Their lowering of income taxes is what got them out of third world status starting in the early 90s. Remember the term Celtic Tiger?

Regardless, my business investments do fine either way as we go to where the cost is most effective as these businesses are very portable. I think in the end it is the lower income population that will hurt most because the govt rebates go away and many industries will see hiring slowdown or pay increase slowdown due to competition from more favourable tax regimes.

In good faith, I do wish all of you well regardless if we disagree.

 

[FunSugarDaddy]

You need to seperate voting for a particular government from what is an optimal and efficient tax policy, and you don't seem to want to do that.

Instead of looking at where Ireland is, why not look at where Canada is in relation to others in the G8 and what steps and policies were implemented to allow us to become fiscally responsible relative to other nations.

I'm personally still not happy with a lot of things. I don't like the government pension entitlements, the way teachers feel they are entitled to a ridiculous amount of time off, the way my wife tells me some government employees purposely call in sick to get paid and then accept shifts somewhere else, thereby doubling up their pay, and the provincial governments over all debt load, which I feel are largely related to these inefficiences. The executive pay scale of BC Hydro and BC Ferry annoys me. The fast ferries still pisses me off, but none of this really has any bearing on what an effective and efficient tax policy should look like.

The problem with the whole debate is the numbers, including those from a government I wouldn't trust if they told me water is wet, are all over the place.
Jack Mi tz makes outrageious claims of the benfits of the HST, then the independent commission provides other numbers.

A lot of the HST benefits claimed are economic theories. The biggest supporters are economists - you know, most of the same guys who had no clue world economies were going to collapse in 2008. The same guys helping governments make economic predictions and budgets that, in my lifetime have never come close to projections.

Some of you seem to want the approach of Ireland, which is virtually broke - with a VAT of 21% and corporate tax rate of 12.5%. That sounds like great economic planning. Why not have no corporate taxes and have all the tax burden on consumers?

So, I'm basing my decision of two things - 1. the complete abandonment of democracy in A - committing fraud to get elected and B - not having the guts and integrity to run on an economic policy and 2. my personal experience of losing business and costing me more on a day to day basis and more in the future.

Maybe what's best for the province would be to hold the government accountable and make them be honest and stable and not create thins kind of stress on the economy. Pretty unique thought, huh?

 

[huggzy]

You need to seperate voting for a particular government from what is an optimal and efficient tax policy, and you don't seem to want to do that.

Instead of looking at where Ireland is, why not look at where Canada is in relation to others in the G8 and what steps and policies were implemented to allow us to become fiscally responsible relative to other nations.

I'm personally still not happy with a lot of things. I don't like the government pension entitlements, the way teachers feel they are entitled to a ridiculous amount of time off, the way my wife tells me some government employees purposely call in sick to get paid and then accept shifts somewhere else, thereby doubling up their pay, and the provincial governments over all debt load, which I feel are largely related to these inefficiences. The executive pay scale of BC Hydro and BC Ferry annoys me. The fast ferries still pisses me off, but none of this really has any bearing on what an effective and efficient tax policy should look like.

Why do we always have to compare our tax regime to anyone else's, period??? One nation's situation is always going to be unique next to another one's.

And it's fine to say that the VAT might be a more efficient tax...but it rapes us if you implement this kind of taxing without correcting everything else as you do it.

And as we all know once a government is taxing us in a given way its virtually impossible to get them to cut it later.

 

[huggzy]

No need to get personal here. Why do you always come off so angry? Are you not able to have a rational discussion without getting emotional about it?

Actually, if you knew me then you would know that I am very much in favour of lower taxes and drastic reductions to the size of government. But until we cut spending, we have to pay for the government we have. The HST is a better way of raising money than the PST. Nobody with any real knowledge of tax and economics disputes this. Yes there are some people who are going to be worse off under the HST but they are a very small minority.

Your passive aggressive approach doesn't fool anyone either. You're still a douchebag...I'm not afraid to just come out and tell you this as opposed to hiding in the weeds and take sniper shots in the dark like a pussy.

 

[whoisjohngalt]

Your passive aggressive approach doesn't fool anyone either. You're still a douchebag...I'm not afraid to just come out and tell you this as opposed to hiding in the weeds and take sniper shots in the dark like a pussy.

Well tough guy you sure put me in my place. All that aside you still haven't made any coherent arguments to support your position. And judging from the results of the poll started by FunSuggarDaddy you don't appear to have persuaded many of the readers of this forum.

The difference between my criticism of you is that I am attacking your lack of knowledge on this subject matter, and I stand behind all comments I have made. You on the other hand are using childish ad hominem attacks, which we all know are the last resort of the defeated and the standard arsenal of the ignorant. You seem to lack the maturity level to have a reasonable discussion on this matter.

 

[FunSugarDaddy]

And as we all know once a government is taxing us in a given way its virtually impossible to get them to cut it later.

What are you talking about?

I remember when the GST was 7% now it's 5%

I remember when BC's highest combined federal/provincial tax rate was above 50% now it's 43.7%

So you're either stupid, or you have a selective memory..take your pick. I'll assume it's the latter.

 

[huggzy]

What are you talking about?

I remember when the GST was 7% now it's 5%

I remember when BC's highest combined federal/provincial tax rate was above 50% now it's 43.7%

So you're either stupid, or you have a selective memory..take your pick. I'll assume it's the latter.

If you remember correctly, before the GST was initially instituted our MST was jacked right up by our government...this was done to give the appearance that the feds were doing us a favor by making the change to the GST. That didn't fly to well did it?

Maybe you have a selective memory...or are too stupid for your own good as well?

Also, how is it even relevant to cite the dropping of income tax of the highest, top 1% of all income earners? We all know that that bracket is severely undertaxed.

 

[FunSugarDaddy]

If you remember correctly, before the GST was initially instituted our MST was jacked right up by our government...this was done to give the appearance that the feds were doing us a favor by making the change to the GST. That didn't fly to well did it?

Maybe you have a selective memory...or are too stupid for your own good as well?

Also, how is it even relevant to cite the dropping of income tax of the highest, top 1% of all income earners? We all know that that bracket is severely undertaxed.

You're the one who said taxes NEVER go down only up, and I demonstrated where you were wrong.

I prepare tax returns for a living so I could have used all kinds of other references, such as the working income tax benefit, the HST credit, the low income climate action tax credit, the child tax benefit etc, all introduced to help low income earners, but what's the point, when I'm obviously arguing with the uninformed.

I gotta stop doing that.

 

[Cock Throppled]

There are taxes and there are fees disguised as taxes.

The Liberals lowered personal income taxes, but jacked up fees and levies for just about everything but breathing, then taxed the levies just for good measure. By lowering one tax, but upping other taxes or fees the actual amounts paid by citizens goes up, while the tax may go down.

As for HST credits, low income climate action tax credit, GST credits, etc etc it's just a game by politicians to make it look like they are giving something but are just creating more bureaucracy to manage all these credits rather than not simply not take the money in the first place.

 

[FunSugarDaddy]

There are taxes and there are fees disguised as taxes.

The Liberals lowered personal income taxes, but jacked up fees and levies for just about everything but breathing, then taxed the levies just for good measure. By lowering one tax, but upping other taxes or fees the actual amounts paid by citizens goes up, while the tax may go down.

As for HST credits, low income climate action tax credit, GST credits, etc etc it's just a game by politicians to make it look like they are giving something but are just creating more bureaucracy to manage all these credits rather than not simply not take the money in the first place.

The spending issue is different than the taxation issue. If you want lower spending, vote for the party which is offering it. But as for taxation issues, you can either do the same, and vote for the party willing to cut taxes, or in this case you can vote for the most efficient tax options out of the two presented. But also remember if you vote for the party most willing to cut taxes, and they don't lower spending, then you're just voting to increase our debt.

 

[shockley]

I find the furor over the HST on this board fascinating. I follow it like it's the Torah. The angst generated by this tax amongst individuals who spend thousands to tens of thousands of dollars a year for escort services comical. What's that idiom," penny wise, and pound foolish", or is it "can't see the forest for the trees".

 

[wilde]

As for HST credits, low income climate action tax credit, GST credits, etc etc it's just a game by politicians to make it look like they are giving something but are just creating more bureaucracy to manage all these credits rather than not simply not take the money in the first place.

This is called redistribution of wealth (notice how only low income individuals qualify for these credits), may be you've heard of it. It's only like one of the most fundamental purposes of the taxation system.

 

[Cock Throppled]

This is called redistribution of wealth (notice how only low income individuals qualify for these credits), may be you've heard of it. It's only like one of the most fundamental purposes of the taxation system.

Yeah, the expert has spoken.

Redistribution of wealth is not now, and never has been a fundamental purpose of taxation. It's primary function is to run government. That may include redistribution of wealth but, other than socialist or communist governments it is never a basic principal of tax policy.

 

[wilde]

Wow. Perhaps one of the dumbest things ever posted in this thread.

No you take the cake on that one with the majority of your posts, all you do is bitch and now you are turning into one.

It's not my fault that you are too stupid to understand the taxation system. Here is a free lesson for you (from wikipedia):

"Taxation has four main purposes or effects: Revenue, Redistribution, Repricing, and Representation.

1. The main purpose is revenue: taxes raise money to spend on armies, roads, schools and hospitals, and on more indirect government functions like market regulation or legal systems.
2. A second is redistribution. Normally, this means transferring wealth from the richer sections of society to poorer sections.
3. A third purpose of taxation is repricing. Taxes are levied to address externalities; for example, tobacco is taxed to discourage smoking, and a carbon tax discourages use of carbon-based fuels.
4. A fourth, consequential effect of taxation in its historical setting has been representation. The American revolutionary slogan "no taxation without representation" implied this: rulers tax citizens, and citizens demand accountability from their rulers as the other part of this bargain. Studies have shown that direct taxation (such as income taxes) generates the greatest degree of accountability and better governance, while indirect taxation tends to have smaller effects."

It must be really sad to be you, always long on complaints and short on solutions. If you hate paying taxes so much, you can always piss off to Bermuda or something. You remind me of those assholes in my building's strata meeting, complaining about everything but when it's time to elect the new strata council, either nowhere in sight or throw out every stupid excuses there are.

 

[shockley]

No you take the cake on that one with the majority of your posts, all you do is bitch and now you are turning into one.

It's not my fault that you are too stupid to understand the taxation system. Here is a free lesson for you (from wikipedia):

"Taxation has four main purposes or effects: Revenue, Redistribution, Repricing, and Representation.

1. The main purpose is revenue: taxes raise money to spend on armies, roads, schools and hospitals, and on more indirect government functions like market regulation or legal systems.
2. A second is redistribution. Normally, this means transferring wealth from the richer sections of society to poorer sections.
3. A third purpose of taxation is repricing. Taxes are levied to address externalities; for example, tobacco is taxed to discourage smoking, and a carbon tax discourages use of carbon-based fuels.
4. A fourth, consequential effect of taxation in its historical setting has been representation. The American revolutionary slogan "no taxation without representation" implied this: rulers tax citizens, and citizens demand accountability from their rulers as the other part of this bargain. Studies have shown that direct taxation (such as income taxes) generates the greatest degree of accountability and better governance, while indirect taxation tends to have smaller effects."

It must be really sad to be you, always long on complaints and short on solutions. If you hate paying taxes so much, you can always piss off to Bermuda or something. You remind me of those assholes in my building's strata meeting, complaining about everything but when it's time to elect the new strata council, either nowhere in sight or throw out every stupid excuses there are.

Don't be so arrogant. He is not arguing the premise of redistribution, he is saying it is an ineffective means of redistribution. I guess if you google tax and wikipedia, that makes one a tax scholar. Was your exam multiple choice open book?