Email from Colin Hansen :: Why the HST and why now?

[Yume-sama]

Originally Posted by touraccuracy

yeah, that's pretty weak whatnext.

the opposition seems to always make really really dumb arguments or say things that are absolutely false which end up discrediting the few good things they say.

Well, in fairness, saving money goes against everything they believe in.

[Fairbanks]

Everyone knows, especially in 2010 that WE the province will never see a dime of that money diverted to ease the burden on the healthcare system and education. That billion and a half will go to the Site C dam project.

Stop kidding yourself.

The NDP will never repeal a tax...because they are the tax and spend party.

This tax must be stopped. Small business employs the bulk of the workers in this or any economy...WE CANNOT AFFORD THIS.

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Colin Hansen today stated that the $495 million deficit for the 2009/10 fiscal year is approaching $3 billion due to a dramatic decline in the provincial revenue stream as well as increasing costs.

Frankly, like the rest of us, I don't like the HST but the additional $1.6 billion cheque from the feds (as a result of implementing the HST) will certainly assist in alleviating cuts to health care, education, and social programs.

FWIW, the NDP promised another $3 billion in deficit financing during the election and BC would probably now be looking at a $6 billion annualized deficit under their tenure.

NDP Would Add $3 Billion to BC Debt

http://thetyee.ca/News/2009/04/10/NDPPlatform/

The Manitoba NDP government, a helluva more moderate, centrist and non-ideological than the BC NDP are also now looking at implementing the HST. Their Premier Gary Doer at least has some common sense IMHO.

Carole, Carole... who's that now popping up in your photo ops?



Source: http://www.lutralutra.co.uk

[cornholio]

So businesses save 1.9 billion,
Of this $150 million is due to no longer administrating duplicate and recurring taxes.
That means they pay 1.75billion less in taxes.

While the government saves 30 million.
Takes in the same tax revenue.
That means they can cut taxes by 30 million.

That leaves 1.72 billion in tax saving for businesses that someone has to pay, obviously consumers.

So what he is saying is that we are implementing a harmonized sales tax(great idea that saves 180million), but at the same time we are shifting 1.72billion dollars worth of taxes from businesses to residents.

This means ever man women and child will pay $382 more every year in taxes. For a family of say 4 that comes to over $1500 per year. While businesses and corporations will enjoy $1.72 billion dollars worth of tax cuts.


So NO its not a tax grab.
YES it is a tax shift from business to people.

In order for it to not be a tax shift and maintain the same tax revenue they would need to increase corporate taxes and business to recoup the 1.72billion in TAX CUTS and then lower the HST to take in 1.72billion less from consumers. Only then consumers will pay the same while businesses and corporations can see the $180 million in savings($30 million in tax cuts, $150 million in their savings).




So yes the liberals are not telling the truth about their sneaky agenda, to think other wise you have to be either a idiot or just really bad at math. Yes HST is a great idea and will save everyone apparently $180 million(30 million saved by the government ever year, $150 million saved by businesses of which some will be passed on to consumers, some will be used to better compete in the global and national markets and some will be pocketed by business owners until competition cancels the extra profits out, this though can take decades in some markets).

It boils down to this, do you want to punish the liberals for their lies, do you not want a tax shift? If you answer yes to one of these then sign the petition.

Personally I dont mind a tax shift but it would need to be done properly, this just takes more money out of the bottom half of people and puts it in the pocket of the top half.

[Yume-sama]

In general I don't like the idea of HST. But, I think most people don't like paying more for *everything*. I don't see how it will help the economy at all.

I don't know how it will really hurt me, though, as almost everything I already buy has GST & PST, which in itself is one reason I tend to save big purchases for Alberta.

I also don't think many people who will sign the anti-HST petition (which, let's not kid ourselves will amount to nothing) really understand it at all, like cornholio seems to.

[Spork]

Yawn. Nobody understands the implications of having a competitive economy.

Read this article for a good look at the changes that are coming in to personal income tax and a few other things to offset the effects of HST: http://www.tenthtothefraser.ca/2010/...formed-people/

[Yume-sama]

If it's all really offset and evens out then... why bother ?

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by Spork

Yawn. Nobody understands the implications of having a competitive economy.

Read this article for a good look at the changes that are coming in to personal income tax and a few other things to offset the effects of HST: http://www.tenthtothefraser.ca/2010/...formed-people/

yawn, just wipe out people and replace them with robots since they work hard and dont whine.

You do know that there is a balance we try to reach to maximize quality of life. If you only concentrate on improving economic competitiveness then the quality of life will plummet. Thats why we have public services, government, laws and such in the first place, they are there to keep this so called capitalistic competitiveness in check. Right now Campbell is steering dangerously to the right and this can very well damage the quality of life of the majority for the limited benefit of the minority whos quality of life has already plateaued in todays world.

The question is who is better at managing money(in a way your money), you as a individual or government or a corporation? Certainly a corporation will be more efficient at using money as they will have more of it pooled together, government is a type of middle ground, and individuals are safer and more adaptable with the money, since theres lots of them, like partitions on a hard drive.

Lets strive for a balance, find that perfect point of taxation for everyone and everything, and then change accordingly as that point moves.

[huenthar]

If books and children's clothes can get a point-of-sale rebate on the PST-portion of the HST, and things like groceries maintain their exemptions, then why don't they have exemptions to cover all the products and services previously exempt from the PST, in particular restaurant meals? That's half the problem for many people right there, and I don't understand why this isn't done...

[Yume-sama]

Why not just exempt everything that is already exempted from PST. Then it will all balance out

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by huenthar

If books and children's clothes can get a point-of-sale rebate on the PST-portion of the HST, and things like groceries maintain their exemptions, then why don't they have exemptions to cover all the products and services previously exempt from the PST, in particular restaurant meals? That's half the problem for many people right there, and I don't understand why this isn't done...

Why SHOULDN'T people pay PST on restaurant meals? Is there any logical reason to that exemption at all? If anything people should be encouraged to eat healthy at home more often. And is eating out something affordable that the poorer people do that often anyway? Cheapest bill I had eating out for a full meal in the last year must have been $40 for two people. Oh no, I'll have to pay $2.80 more (maybe).

The idea of VAT is that it shifts the investment burden off the upfront costs of running a business, even a restaurant. No more 12% tax on buying equipment and supplies.

Yes, there is a momentary loss in government revenue, but that is made back later (and not from the HST). The restaurant now has more money (as pointed out by some, maybe a 40% lower start up cost). That makes it less likely to fail, and leaves more capital for hiring more staff or buying better supplies. More business and more staff means more business tax and more income tax sources.

After the HST most people will either see 2 possible things when they go to a restaurant, a cheaper cost on their meal and/or more staff (like comeon, most places can use way more help). It will either cost less, or you'll have better service. If you don't get either, it's a horrible business and would fail with or without the HST.

[Yume-sama]

Doesn't the HST apply to food ? What's stopping a person from eating unhealthy at home?

Is there PST on Starbucks currently?

But yes, I agree that an extra $3 is unlikely to bankrupt people and make them never want to eat out.

The hysteria about how expensive it will be, and people not being able to do math, may however do that.

However, I'll probably tip less, just automatically. Usually I just round up to the nearest most appropriate dollar amount.

Like, $24... I'll give $30. Well, make that $25 or so and I'll still give $30.

[WarrenC12]

Consumption taxes are way better for a healthy economy than income taxes.

Tough to understand for a lot of people, but in the end the HST is a good way to go.

[touraccuracy]

taxing restaurants is a GREAT move. think tourism, people. we want to rely more on tourism over industry, lets make more money off of tourists by making them pay some pst on all those meals out.

this is a great idea with regards to potential increased tourism from the olympics. let's cash in.


also, i think its hard to argue (from a left wing standpoint) that making prices higher and discouraging consumption is a bad thing.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by touraccuracy

yeah, that's pretty weak whatnext.

the opposition seems to always make really really dumb arguments or say things that are absolutely false which end up discrediting the few good things they say.

Its symptomatic of the slap-dash cash grab Gordo is making that they hadn't even thought out all the implications of their actions.

Any tax that shifts further burden onto the consumer (as Carole Taylor pointed out) is a bad thing, especially as you exist a recession. Its not just restaurant meals, its cultural and sporting events. How can taxing people's gym memberships and discouraging fitness be a good thing?

[Spork]

Originally Posted by cornholio

yawn, just wipe out people and replace them with robots since they work hard and dont whine.

You do know that there is a balance we try to reach to maximize quality of life. If you only concentrate on improving economic competitiveness then the quality of life will plummet. Thats why we have public services, government, laws and such in the first place, they are there to keep this so called capitalistic competitiveness in check. Right now Campbell is steering dangerously to the right and this can very well damage the quality of life of the majority for the limited benefit of the minority whos quality of life has already plateaued in todays world.

The question is who is better at managing money(in a way your money), you as a individual or government or a corporation? Certainly a corporation will be more efficient at using money as they will have more of it pooled together, government is a type of middle ground, and individuals are safer and more adaptable with the money, since theres lots of them, like partitions on a hard drive.

Lets strive for a balance, find that perfect point of taxation for everyone and everything, and then change accordingly as that point moves.

Sounds great! At least the robots will do their research prior to signing a pointless petition.

I've been thinking over the past couple of weeks, if Vancouver has such a great quality of life (seemingly ranked in the top 5 or 10 of each study that comes out), why should we not start making trade-offs? I would gladly do away with some of the nice little things that we get from higher taxation in order to have better job opportunities, or even lower rent (or home ownership, even!).

Damage the quality of life by applying an existing tax to a few more items and then offsetting it almost entirely through a larger base personal amount on income tax? Sounds HORRIBLE. THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

I can't understand your conclusion in the corporation vs. government vs. individuals differentiation on managing (or using - it isn't quite clear). Which one are you saying is the best?

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by cornholio

Right now Campbell is steering dangerously to the right and this can very well damage the quality of life of the majority for the limited benefit of the minority whos quality of life has already plateaued in todays world.

You probably mean left? The more centrist Ontario Liberal gov't will have a higher HST at 13%, while the new NDP administration in Nova Scotia just jacked up their HST to 15%.

Go to social democratic Europe and the VAT goes up to 21%.

OTOH, if ya wanna go to the right, the BC Conservative platform includes the elimination of the PST portion of the HST, which would bring down the HST to 5%. Is it any wonder that right-wing crusader Bill Vander Zalm and the deputy leader of the BC Conservative Party, Chris Delaney, are leading the Fight HST campaign?!

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by Spork

Sounds great! At least the robots will do their research prior to signing a pointless petition.

I've been thinking over the past couple of weeks, if Vancouver has such a great quality of life (seemingly ranked in the top 5 or 10 of each study that comes out), why should we not start making trade-offs? I would gladly do away with some of the nice little things that we get from higher taxation in order to have better job opportunities, or even lower rent (or home ownership, even!).

Damage the quality of life by applying an existing tax to a few more items and then offsetting it almost entirely through a larger base personal amount on income tax? Sounds HORRIBLE. THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

I can't understand your conclusion in the corporation vs. government vs. individuals differentiation on managing (or using - it isn't quite clear). Which one are you saying is the best?

I might not be the best at explaining things, infact I am pretty bad, but you simply just dont comprehend the subject, the numbers, or the ramifications.

Fist of all we are talking about a TAX SHIFT, please understand that. So the question is is it best for everyone to cut business and corporate taxes(actually business and corporate consumption taxes) by apparently $1.72 billion dollars and raise individual consumption taxes by $1.72 billion dollars.(this translates to approximately $382 for every man women and child).

You just dont understand. Citizens of BC WILL be paying 1.72 billion more in taxes, the assumption then is that eventual prices will drop to compensate but this only works in theory but isnt perfect in practice.
Simply put your quality of life will drop starting in June, after that the gap should slowly close with todays level.

Regarding corporation vs government vs people. that is exactly what a tax shift is about, it shifts money from one to the other, also know as redistribution. In this case the government keeps control of the same amount of money, corporations get control of more, people get control of less. I suggest finding out a bit more about what money actually is which is a store of value. Im not sure you really understand.

Its all about a balancing act hence there are many taxes, kind of like shims.

[Spork]

The misunderstanding was in regards to which you felt was more efficient at handling money. You seemed to claim that they are all more efficient than the next, which obviously doesn't make logical sense. I therefore, cannot see any disadvantage to shifting more control to corporations.

Economically speaking, prices SHOULD drop, so long as in those areas that businesses are receiving an advantage do not have unreasonable barriers to entry. Economic theory shows that businesses will continue to enter a market until their real profits are zero. Of course, no market operates exactly like this because of a number of management tools used to protect methods of value creation (branding, patents, capital requirements, government licensing, monopolies, and other anti-competitive actions). Therefore, the increase in profits apparently created by HST will net out to zero in the long run with the exception of the margin created by these methods of value creation. If you are purely price sensitive, which nobody seems to be (what is the debt rate now? 105% or something?), you can get pretty close to this sort of market scenario.

To me, the unarguable benefit to society is the efficiencies gained in collecting and managing these taxes. Anything to make our uncompetitive economy is more than welcome. On a personal note, I'm on the hunt for a new job, and the market in Vancouver is just pathetically frustrating. Right now it looks like I will have to move back east, and this is terribly frustrating, as I love Vancouver! Increasing attractiveness to businesses is just what the doctor ordered.

The net shift to consumers after increasing the personal income tax exemption and so forth, is just $1.72 billion? Or does this not include these amounts?

[whatnext]

Looks like the anti-HST organization as hit the 10% threshold to force a referendum, but will keep collecting signatures to ensure that disqualified signatures don't scuttle the plan.

..Led by former B.C. premier Bill Vander Zalm, the campaign’s organizers say 10 per cent of registered voters in all 85 provincial ridings have signed the petition to kill the proposed HST.

The final riding to reach that level was Vancouver-Langara, which passed the marker Friday morning...

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/ant...#ixzz0pT59p5Qq

[Spork]

Originally Posted by Elections BC

The Select Standing Committee on Legislative Initiatives must meet within 30 days of receipt of the initiative petition and draft Bill. The Select Standing Committee has 90 days to consider the legislative proposal. The Committee must either table a report recommending introduction of the draft Bill or refer the initiative petition and draft Bill to the Chief Electoral Officer for an initiative vote.

If an initiative vote is required, a vote will be held on September 24, 2011, and on the last Saturday of September in every third year after that date. If more than 50% of the total number of registered voters in the province vote in favour of an initiative, and more than 50% of the total number of registered voters in each of at least 2/3 of the electoral districts in the province vote in favour of an initiative, the Chief Electoral Officer must declare the initiative vote to be successful and the government must introduce the Bill at the earliest practicable opportunity.

After a Bill is introduced into the legislature, the requirements of the Recall and Initiative Act have been satisfied, and any subsequent reading, amendment, or passage of the Bill will proceed as with any other Bill, with no guarantee of passage.

Don't get your hopes up.