Provincial Haul From the HST

[FunSugarDaddy]

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?

I disagree. Here's what he said verbatum "Redistribution of wealth is not now, and never has been a fundamental purpose of taxation."

This is patiently false, as the tax system we have is clearly designed to redistibute wealth. In fact that's the whole premise of having graduated tax rates and the basic exemption. Those that make more money, for the most part, definately pay more tax. Sure there are some tax deductions, more common being RRSP's but that's part of a public policy decision to encourage those working to save for their retirement, and it's taxed upon withdrawl.

But generally speaking, the more you make the more tax you pay and if you're income is relatively low you may not only not pay any tax, but you could benefits by, in some cases, thousands of dollars by filing a tax return in the form of entitlements from various government programs. The child tax benefit rebate alone can often about to several thousands of dollars. So if this isn't a redistribution of wealth, then you have a different defination of what it means than I do.

 

[Cock Throppled]

Read it again.

"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. "

 

[FunSugarDaddy]

Read it again.

"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. "

I guess you wouldn't want facts to get in the way of a poor argument.

The fact of the matter is that the redistribution of income is and has been occuring for years through the tax system and no amount of spin is going to change the fact that it's currently part of they Canadian tax system. Whether it's the "main" purpose or an auxillery purpose seems like a moot point as it's certainly one of its objectives.

 

[wilde]

Read it again.

"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. "

You and your disciple shockley are amazing... amazingly stupid that is. You have just proven that you couldn't get a multiple choice question correct even if you were starring at the answer because of that dead space inside your head.

 

[DavidMR]

One of the first things you learn when taking a tax course is that taxing consumption is preferable to taxing income, for a variety of reasons, ...

Could you tell us what one or two of those reasons are?

 

[DavidMR]

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?

Your concern for the poor is touching. If there were a concern about them, the PST tax credits could have been increased. No need to harmonize.

 

[FunSugarDaddy]

Could you tell us what one or two of those reasons are?

1. A consumption tax is much harder to avoid than income taxes are, so even your local drug dealer or anyone else who doesn't pay tax ends up paying this tax.

2. It allows a taxpayer to invest more of their money and thus earn more. So if someone had to pay a tax rate of say 30% of their earnings, and never spend this money, then on a $100 they would only have $70 to invest after tax, while if they were only
taxed when this money was spent, they would have the full $100 to invest.

3. It treats everyone the same, so it's equitable. Regardless of how much money you make a consumption tax of say 10% is the same for you and me, so if we both spend $1,000 we'd both be hit with a $100 consumption tax.

4. It allows businesses to export at a lower price because since the item is only taxed in the hands of the consumer rather then the business, by not having to pay income tax, it can sell it at a lower price. If they export it, they would by-pass the
consumption tax and thus they would be more competitive. This is especially true if input tax credits are involved. The movie industry is a good example of this, I've been told by a director that the HST because of the input tax credit, is crucial to
keeping the industry in BC.

5. Simplicity, a VAT type of tax is way easier to administer then an income tax system, especially one with a myriad of deductions, credits etc.

 

[FunSugarDaddy]

Your concern for the poor is touching. If there were a concern about them, the PST tax credits could have been increased. No need to harmonize.

I could live without them having the HST if they simplified the PST and offered input tax credits, if they did both those things it would amount to a provincial HST system albeit one more level of duplicating the services of another.

The sad part is that would be the absolute best outcome. But why we need both the federal and the provincial government administering two similar programs and wasting taxpayers money to accomplish the same thing one level of govenment could do is a mystery to me.

 

[Man Mountain]

Interesting:

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."

 

[Cock Throppled]

You and your disciple shockley are amazing... amazingly stupid that is. You have just proven that you couldn't get a multiple choice question correct even if you were starring at the answer because of that dead space inside your head.

Well, you certainly told me with that brilliant piece of prose.
However, unlike you I base my decision on direct facts, not what I google to support my position.
Fact - the HST cost me business.
Fact - on a personal level the HST costs me more as more things are taxed and almost every service.
Fact - The Liberals were elected by fraud because they lied about implementing the HST.
Fact - Prices have not come down.
Fact - We have been losing jobs compared to provinces without the HST.
Fact - The number of jobs in the heavily subsidized film industry in BC is more directly related to the dollar than HST efficiency.

I recently sold a business for a couple of million and am still running another, so I guess I'm too stupid to understand what the cognoscenti tells me.

The HST in Ontario apparently hasn't helped RIM. Two thousand job cuts announced today.

 

[aznboi9]

Well, you certainly told me with that brilliant piece of prose.
However, unlike you I base my decision on direct facts, not what I google to support my position.

Actually, your "facts" are largely opinion that has been refuted many times over. Heck, your original post that started this thread to begin with is another demonstration of that.

You've shown to have a very poor understanding on many aspects of the HST, have utilitised flawed reasoning, and have had to scramble from argument to argument to the point of contradiction. And, now, having had all avenues exhausted, you have resorted to simply rehashing the same refuted arguments. It's reminiscent of RandyWhorewald and Krustee when they were trying to disprove climate change.

What's most amusing is that while real life polls have the put the two sides neck and neck (and I still think the Yes side has the advantage), perb's informal polling has had the HST side win by a landslide. So, for all of your work and effort that you've put into your little mini campaign, far from being a contribution to the Yes side, you've probably been more of a hindrance to it.

 

[Cock Throppled]

Interesting that the facts that impact me, directly and personally you consider opinion, but the googled economic theories you guys dig up you consider facts.

Where are the jobs?
Where are the lowered prices?
Other than a few, "We'll pay the HST" sales I've seen no prices lowered - as a consumer or through our business. Those sales are there trying to retain customers.

The quantifiable benefits of the HST have been greatly over-stated.
The biggest impact I've seen from the HST is a company that let four accounting staff go because of the HST. So, yes the book-keeping is easier and the profits higher - and four jobs are lost. Meanwhile the bonuses for the VP's tripled.

As for the poll - hardly surprising given the money spent to buy your vote.

 

[Ray]

The HST in Ontario apparently hasn't helped RIM. Two thousand job cuts announced today.

RIM has been losing market share to the I-Phone and Androids for years, ands it's version of the I-pad bombed. Their declining market share has absolutely nothing to do with the HST.

Where are the jobs?

We're in the middle of a global economic melt-down. Canada's economy is an export based economy. Our exports aren't going to improve until the global economy starts to recover. Having said that, we've done remarkably well compared to other industrialized nations around the globe.

 

[aznboi9]

As for the poll - hardly surprising given the money spent to buy your vote.

Really? All this money has been spent on perb? I had no idea we were such a sought after demographic.

 

[whoisjohngalt]

Interesting that the facts that impact me, directly and personally you consider opinion, but the googled economic theories you guys dig up you consider facts.

Where are the jobs?
Where are the lowered prices?
Other than a few, "We'll pay the HST" sales I've seen no prices lowered - as a consumer or through our business. Those sales are there trying to retain customers.

The quantifiable benefits of the HST have been greatly over-stated.
The biggest impact I've seen from the HST is a company that let four accounting staff go because of the HST. So, yes the book-keeping is easier and the profits higher - and four jobs are lost. Meanwhile the bonuses for the VP's tripled.

As for the poll - hardly surprising given the money spent to buy your vote.

You may be one of the few who is worse off under HST. I myself likely fall into this group as well (for the short term anyways). I don't expect most people to vote for the greater good against their own narrow self interest, but fortunately the majority of British Columbians are in fact better off with the HST credits, not to mention that the long term economic advantages of the HST over the PST accrue to all of us, particularly those of us who engage in business. So bottom line - if you are against the HST for personal or political reasons that is of course your privilege, but I don't see how anyone who has studied the subject cannot conclude that the HST is a superior method of taxation as compared to the old PST system.

 

[whoisjohngalt]

The biggest impact I've seen from the HST is a company that let four accounting staff go because of the HST. So, yes the book-keeping is easier and the profits higher - and four jobs are lost. Meanwhile the bonuses for the VP's tripled.

Let me get this straight. A company employing 4 people to do nothing but comply with a taxation regime is somehow a good thing? That is like saying that the government should employ people to dig holes in the ground and then fill them up so as to "create jobs". Your example is just more proof of the fact that the compliance burden of the PST was onerous and anti-productive. Those 4 can now find employment elsewhere and god forbid perhaps in some productive capacity rather than just filling out government forms.

 

[wilde]

The HST in Ontario apparently hasn't helped RIM. Two thousand job cuts announced today.

Are you going to blame the Oslo attacks on the HST too?

Fact - you cherry pick your examples however irrelevant and blame it on the HST.

Fact - you are constantly bragging about how you run a successful business, blah, blah, blah, for all we know you could just as well be a homeless transvestite.

Fact - you are becoming irrelevant and a constantly bitching bitch.

 

[twoblues]

RIM has been losing market share to the I-Phone and Androids for years, ands it's version of the I-pad bombed. Their declining market share has absolutely nothing to do with the HST.

What about Nortel!?!?!!? Explain that one away with your logic!

 

[Ray]

What about Nortel!?!?!!? Explain that one away with your logic!

Nortel was always a money-losing venture.
During the tech bubble of the 1990's, the stock price reached well over $120/share, a number that could not be justified based on company revenues.
The company expanded well beyond it's means, hoping to capitalize on the high-tech fibre-optics boom that never materialized. They ended up $4.5 billion in debt, a number they could never repay.
When the tech bubble burst, they had to declare bankruptcy.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nortel

Were you going to ask me about Bre-X next?

 

[twoblues]

Well, I wasn't really looking for an answer...just a chuckle...