# HST is In The Ditch



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

I know all the forum buddies here enjoyed the HST, but the people of BC just put it into the ditch. We voted against trusting the government and all of their crap to say we the people are in control.

The vote was against telling and letting the people in and not about losing money to a new PST or whatever. Sorry forum buddies but BC will not bend to just about anything and we stand up for ourselves like Alberta does or should do.

Sure we lose money and all that crap but at least we have a voice and will use it if we must.


----------



## Karen (Jul 24, 2010)

I'm afraid we're all going to be sorry down the road, Dogcom. Everybody (including the Liberals who brought it in) agree that the introduction of the HST was handled very badly, but that's a separate issue from whether it's good or bad for the economy. To me, a much more intelligent way of handling the situation would have been for those who were still upset about the lack of consultation about the HST to vote to retain it but vote against the Liberals in the next election. As it stands now, I think the voters of BC have bitten off their nose to spite their face (as my mother would have said). We're not children, and we shouldn't be making important decisions like this on the basis of childish spite against the government. However, it's done now and we have to accept it, but I fear we're going to be paying the penalties for many years to come.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Good show, dogcom, I'm glad you guys booted it.
I wish the residents of Ontario had half the gumption.
The govt. is the ultimate self preserving machinery.
They will lie, cheat and deceive the people about its true intentions and will do anything to cover up their incompetencies.
Fact is that most governments today are out of control with their taxation and spending habits.
They take money from ordinary hard working people and businesses to serve special agenda groups and vested interests.
They will dream up new taxes, and new statistics to justify those taxes, and pull the wool over our eyes.

Well played people of BC, we are proud of you.
And I can't wait for October 6th.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

So, hold on...

Vancouver throws a riot over a stupid hockey game and makes us look like fools. Then BC gets away with ditching the HST? 

Apocalypse.

And yes, Mr. Crump. We, as Ontarians, are stupid. Well, not _us_, but you know...


----------



## Karen (Jul 24, 2010)

Harold, I wasn't commenting on the wrongs or rights of the HST itself - I don't know enough about economics to understand who's right about that. My point is that it's been in effect for over a year now, and the costs of getting rid of it are going to be huge - reestablishing the PST bureaucracy of about 300 employees that was dismantled when the HST came into effect and Ottawa took over the administration of it, the expenses to businesses that spent thousands changing over their accounting/computer systems in July of 2010 and will now have to change back again, and the $1.6 billion that will have to be repaid to the federal government by the taxpayers of BC, to name a few. The estimate that I've seen as to the total cost is about $3 billion, and there's no question in my mind that we could have found better things to do with that money.

Dogcom acknowledged that the change is going to cost us money ("Sure we lose money and all that crap..."), but he makes it clear that he's delighted that the HST is being cancelled out of spite against the Liberal government - hardly a very mature basis for making important decisions, in my opinion. I don`t claim to be the most intelligent person in the world, but I would guess that I`m just as intelligent as he is and, as far as I know, he does not have a degree in Economics, so I doubt whether he has any greater a knowledge of whether the HST is good or bad for the economy than I do; he`s basing his opinions on anger and a wish for revenge. In my opinion that`s a danger in leaving a major decision about the economy to the general public by way of a referendum. At least politicians are answerable to their constituents.


----------



## slacker (Mar 8, 2010)

Why is the HST a bad thing?


----------



## ghostryder (Apr 5, 2009)

slacker said:


> Why is the HST a bad thing?


It's not. People are stupid.


They don't care that consumption taxes are preferable to income taxes. All they care about is having to pay $1.12 for a $1 cup of coffee.



Next BC budget: 

"Income tax rates will rise 2 percentage points for each bracket, and ther will be spending cuts to <insert virtually every program here> , don't complain, you asked for it".


----------



## slacker (Mar 8, 2010)

But aren't taxes and governments bad for people?

The less money government take from me into its coffer, the more money i'll have in my pocket. Isn't that a good thing?


----------



## ghostryder (Apr 5, 2009)

slacker said:


> But aren't taxes and governments bad for people?
> 
> The less money government take from me into its coffer, the more money i'll have in my pocket. Isn't that a good thing?



Do you want roads, police, fire fighters, etc, etc, etc?


I find it profoundly annoying that the majority of people who rail so hard against taxes have no problem using the services those taxes pay for.

It's like the people in the US states that have laws that prevent the state from raising taxes (beyond a threshold) without a referendum. The people say no to taxes to build/expand prisons, then complain when criminals are being let out after only a fraction of their sentence, to make room for newly convicted.


Income taxes punish people for working, saving and investing. The lower income taxes are the better.

Consumption taxes simply restrain consumption, and then only slightly. And they put the "power" in the hands of the consumer. If you want to pay less taxes, consume less. If you don't want to pay $10,000 in HST on your new car, buy a less expensive car


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

HST implementation was supposed to be revenue neutral...I guess then it doesn't matter whether its in or out..(of course the BC Liberals lied about that as well)

I'm proud that for the 1st time a tax was repealed in Canada, I'm just ashamed it took the left coast to pull it off and not us ******** in Alberta.


----------



## ghostryder (Apr 5, 2009)

Eder said:


> HST implementation was supposed to be revenue neutral...I guess then it doesn't matter whether its in or out..(of course the BC Liberals lied about that as well)
> 
> I'm proud that for the 1st time a tax was repealed in Canada, I'm just ashamed it took the left coast to pull it off and not us ******** in Alberta.



Your "proud" that people did something stupid and not in their long term best interest?


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

ghostryder said:


> If you don't want to pay $10,000 in HST on your new car, *buy a less expensive car*


But what's the fun in that?!


----------



## slacker (Mar 8, 2010)

ghostryder said:


> Your "proud" that people did something stupid and not in their long term best interest?


Hey, this is called democracy. People all over the world are literally dying to have a voice. Are you against freedom?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Eder said:


> I'm proud that for the 1st time a tax was repealed in Canada


That's just comically false. Taxes come and go all the time. For instance, we no longer levy head taxes on ethnic immigrants (good thing, too--it was blatantly racist).

Maybe the first tax repealed by referendum? Fine. But government by referendum gives you basketcases like California, a state that is effectively bankrupt and ungovernable, where violent offenders are returned to the streets within months of sentencing because the government can't afford to jail them.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

slacker said:


> Hey, this is called democracy. People all over the world are literally dying to have a voice. Are you against freedom?


I wish conservatives would be consistent about the people's right to be stupid. Why must we ban drugs, and prostitution? If they hurt no one but the people stupid enough to engage in them, they are actually less offensive than ignorant policy-making, such as the repeal of the HST, which will hurt the entire BC economy.

We had also better not hear any belly-aching when other taxes are raised or funding is cut dramatically to bridge the budget gap in BC.


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

Haroldcrump is right we need to stand up to the out of control spending of governments somehow. I should also add city taxes because they are the worst, I simply don't understand how we can add so many new tax payers to a city and yet they need to keep raising taxes faster then the rate of inflation.

I understand what karen is saying and she is right it will cost us and probably the people of BC will really screw up and elect another NDP government down the road. But at some point we have to stand up and just say no and by doing so maybe this will help all Canadians when governments think twice about what they are going to do.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

This was nothing more than a tax increase on millions of citizens at a time when the economy is in the toilet and people are struggling to make ends meet. Glad to see the rule of democracy carried the day yesterday. We pay too much tax and it's good for the gov't to get kicked in the behind every once in a while. Elections are not always sufficient to keep them doing the right thing. Good job BC.


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

the-royal-mail said:


> This was nothing more than a tax increase on millions of citizens at a time when the economy is in the toilet and people are struggling to make ends meet. Glad to see the rule of democracy carried the day yesterday. We pay too much tax and it's good for the gov't to get kicked in the behind every once in a while. Elections are not always sufficient to keep them doing the right thing. Good job BC.


So how is a $3 Billion hit to our economy going to pull us out of the toilet? News flash.... the tooth fairy isn't going to help out the BC treasury, contrary to what those 'Vote Yes" geniuses would have us believe. 

Europe has VAT rates in the high teens and beyond. We would have had a VAT of 10%! What a bunch of fools!


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

A $3 billion hit to the pocket books of citizens is a significant tax grab for something that was supposed to be "revenue neutral". Maybe the gov't there needs to reduce spending on all the special interests and other luxuries lined up at the public trough. Taxpayers are not an ATM to bail out gov't mismanagement of funds.


----------



## financialnoob (Feb 26, 2011)

I'm not going to deny that it was introduced extremely poorly. Then again, I can't imagine any tax, no matter how smart it is, being introduced to great fanfare. People just hate taxes, regardless of the logic behind him.

Yes, people would pay more, and nobody wants to do that. Then again, there were income tax deductions to help offset those costs. The tax was intended to be revenue-neutral.

The weird thing about the reaction on this forum is that it lines up with a lot of key values that have been emphasized on this board. It wasn't about creating a whole new tax so much as a simplification of the old tax, a change that would benefit small businesses. It's also a consumption tax, which is preferred by fiscal conservatives over income tax increases, which penalize everyone.

But hey, we've set up our own little economic experiment lab now. We can see the impact of HST in Ontario vs. without in BC in 5, 10 years to truly see whether it was a good idea or not.


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

the-royal-mail said:


> A $3 billion hit to the pocket books of citizens is a significant tax grab for something that was supposed to be "revenue neutral". Maybe the gov't there needs to reduce spending on all the special interests and other luxuries lined up at the public trough. Taxpayers are not an ATM to bail out gov't mismanagement of funds.


 The $3 Billion was not a tax grab.... the feds were going to give us half of that in return for us adopting the HST. We now have to give that back. The remaining half was the huge admin cost the govt and businesses will have to shell out to convert back.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

financialnoob said:


> But hey, we've set up our own little economic experiment lab now. We can see the impact of HST in Ontario vs. without in BC in 5, 10 years to truly see whether it was a good idea or not.


That would be great. But I'm sure the numbers will be buried, skewed, maimed and plundered to whatever end the presiding government wishes. It will then be "analysed" by the media, and no learnings whatsoever will come from this experiment.

I wasn't really following the BC HST issue because I don't live there. But even if it is detrimental to go back to PST (which I don't see how it is if it's supposed to be tax neutral) it's a small price to pay to remind the government exactly who the hell they work for.


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

peterk said:


> That would be great. But I'm sure the numbers will be buried, skewed, maimed and plundered to whatever end the presiding government wishes. It will then be "analysed" by the media, and no learnings whatsoever will come from this experiment.
> 
> I wasn't really following the BC HST issue because I don't live there. But even if it is detrimental to go back to PST (which I don't see how it is if it's supposed to be tax neutral) it's a small price to pay to remind the government exactly who the hell they work for.


 Hey, while were at it, let's fire up a referendum asking the populace if we should eliminate ALL taxes. Can you guess the outcome of that one? Idiots. Given the choice between a benign dictatorship and our current mob rule, I know what I would opt for.


----------



## NorthernRaven (Aug 4, 2010)

steve41 said:


> Hey, while were at it, let's fire up a referendum asking the populace if we should eliminate ALL taxes. Can you guess the outcome of that one? Idiots. Given the choice between a benign dictatorship and our current mob rule, I know what I would opt for.


I would think that if rejecting a reasonable tax for foolish or emotional reasons is bad and potentially a slippery slope to worse decisions, accepting a "benign" dictatorship to avoid the occasional idiocies of the democratic process would be much more so...


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Maybe the first tax repealed by referendum? Fine. But government by referendum gives you basketcases like California, a state that is effectively bankrupt and ungovernable, where violent offenders are returned to the streets within months of sentencing because the government can't afford to jail them.


Well the old system wont be implemented till end of March 2013...that should give the BC Liberals plenty of time to call an election and this time perhaps add the HST to their platform.


----------



## Karen (Jul 24, 2010)

Not a chance, Eder - the BC Liberals never want to hear the words "Harmonized Sales Tax" again!


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

My understanding as to who was to blame for the HST fiasco is a little confused. I thought that the HST issue had been floating around the various provincial treasuries for eons. When the BC liberals won the last election, the feds saw an opportunity to nail down BC and they made a $1.3B offer to Campbell ..... we will drop a $1.3 Billion inducement to the BC treasury if you adopt the HST, but it is contingent on you accepting it within a short term window. The window was so small, that there was no time to go thru an information campaign/referendum, and because Campbell was so fixed on reducing his deficit, he went for it right away. If this is true, then surely the feds could have offered an extended deadline, and we would have avoided this $3B disaster. Or am I missing something?


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

I don't know the specifics of the BC HST implementation, but if it is anything like Ontario's, it is nothing more than a pure tax grab.

After the introduction of HST in Ontario, many _critical_ products that did not attract the PST now came under the umbrella of the HST.
Best examples : hydro and gasoline.
The move was timed to perfection to co-incide with the punitive increases in hydro-electric rates, TOU pricing, etc. to maximize the taxation effect.

Ditto for gasoline prices.
But for the 2009 recession, our gasoline prices would probably have been in the $1.60 range already.

Can you hear the ka-ching! coming from City Hall and Queen's Park...it's your money going into their pockets.

I would perhaps been ok with the HST if hydro and gasoline continued to attract only the GST, and if the total HST rate were set to something slightly lower than the cumulative 13%...maybe something like 10 - 11%.
But for the federal govt. 2% GST cut, we in Ontario would have been paying 15% for everything.

But of course through statistical magic, everything is revenue-neutral.
When was the last time some tax was not revenue neutral.
Of course it is revenue neutral...there is that big black hole between our pockets and that of the govt. where half of everything disappears, never to be seen or heard of again.

And speaking of timing, notice how everything co-incides with the secret deals and sops to the unions, the bailouts, and the hidden handouts to special interest groups?

How much more do we need to feed the monster?
How much more money does the govt. need from hard working Canadians under the guise of providing services?


----------



## slacker (Mar 8, 2010)

@Crump: Other than government's sadistic nature of stealing money from you and me, what purpose does increasing tax serve government? Is there a massive conspiracy that I am not aware of?


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

When Brian Baloney gave us the GST he said it would replace the 13.5% Manufacturers' Sales Tax and prices of goods would fall. We all know how that turned out...prices all went up 7% overnite.

Our governments don't have a revenue problem...they have a spending problem.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Once again, the HST implementation in Ontario is NOT A TAX GRAB. Yes, the HST will bring in a bit more revenue than the old PST. BUT, at the very same time when the HST was announced in Ontario, the government announced other tax cuts, to personal and corporate income taxes and the elimination of the capital tax that REDUCE REVENUE BY SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THAN THE HST INCREASED IT. That means the HST IS NOT A TAX GRAB, BY DEFINITION. It was part of a program of tax reform to go from stupid taxation to smarter taxation. It is a tax reform that saw Ontario's marginal corporate income tax rate on new investment fall by half from just about 50% to 25%. This is a great thing, and will be extremely beneficial for Ontario's economy.

Sorry for the all-caps, but the message doesn't seem to be sinking in.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

"I would perhaps been ok with the HST if hydro and gasoline continued to attract only the GST, and if the total HST rate were set to something slightly lower than the cumulative 13%...maybe something like 10 - 11%.
But for the federal govt. 2% GST cut, we in Ontario would have been paying 15% for everything."

How on earth would it make sense to implement the HST, exempt everything that was exempt under PST, cut the rate by 25% (a small reduction, in your words), and hope and pray that wouldn't blow an enormous hole in the provincial budget?

Governments aren't free. They either take it from your left pocket (sales taxes) or your right pocket (income tax, etc.). If you have a problem with tax rates, you need to attack spending. Harping endlessly about how the government is using taxes that are more economically benign to raise revenue rather than the old, more damaging tax you prefer is pointless. 

So, which hospital do you want closed? Which roads should be left to fall into disrepair? You seem to think the government collects revenue to have a giant bonfire of cash, rubbing their hands with glee in how they've maximized harm to their constituents. If you believe that, I'm a little concerned for your sanity.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

No. We don't want any hospitals or road budgets cut. We want the cuts to happen to the pork-barrel politics that seem to predominate decade after decade, where there always seems to be money available to pander to various special interests that represent tiny fragments of the population.

This is what a democracy is folks. It's the concept of majority rules and the people have spoken. Case closed.


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

the-royal-mail said:


> where there always seems to be money available to pander to various special interests that represent tiny fragments of the population.


 Yeah like people with cancer and special needs kids in schools, and.....


----------



## Addy (Mar 12, 2010)

steve41 said:


> Yeah like people with cancer and special needs kids in schools, and.....


Good point. I think many people get their backs up when they read "special interest" groups (which by the way is a media coined phrase).


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

Next the governments in North America will introduce carbon credits and carbon taxes. Maybe that money will go to roads for a few years until governments start using it for something else and now we need another tax. And of course the government will unwisely use the money making it worse and worse for everyone.

I am sorry but the forum members calling the people idiots are just as narrow minded thinking they can trust the government to better spend their money. Trust me I know we need taxes to pay for stuff, but unlike you wise folk who call others idiots, I for one demand accountability for where my tax dollars get spent.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Everyone is their own special interest group. Why, you're always insisting that your street be paved, cleared of snow in the winter, your garbage collected, etc. I'm sure a majority of people could agree to forego those services on your street. Majority rules, right? Democracy most definitely is not just majority rule. Minority protection is an essential part of democracy.

I'm not saying government is perfectly efficient. I'm saying that we need to take a more nuanced view than 'Government bad! Taxes bad! Politicians evil!' That kind of simple mindedness will lead you into bad policy decisions, such as knee-jerk opposition to the HST with no thought to second order effects other than that your morning double-double will cost a few cents more.

Dogcom, by all means hold government accountable for how it spends money. However, railing about taxation without thought to how that revenue is used is worthy of contempt. Ranting about the HST has absolutely nothing to do with how the revenue is used.


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

Andrewf I am against just handing the money over and then having this kind of argument.
Also we have mentioned here about wishing for some kind of dictatorship light which is what we already have. Sorry man but you guys in your kind ways are forcing us to the poor house in slow motion as the do not tax crowd in California has done in the opposite way there. 

You see I think ahead and always look at everything and not down a tunnel as most people do. I am willing to accept anything as long as it makes sense in the short to long term and we don't give up our freedoms that was fought for during the second world war. 

A good example of tunnel thinking is the Green crowd that sits in condo's and say don't cut the trees down despite the massive job losses for those who work in small towns. I say help to find alternatives so those people can live without simply cutting trees down, but of course the tunnel condo crowd doesn't care.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

andrewf said:


> How on earth would it make sense to implement the HST, exempt everything that was exempt under PST


Hey, it's supposed to be revenue neutral, no?
Taxing more items, and at a higher rate, doesn't sound like revenue neutrality to me.
And the items in question (hydro, gasoline, etc.) coupled with the timing of the whole thing (increase in hydro rates and the sky-rocketing price of gasoline) is no co-incidence.
It was timed to deliver maximum damage to the pockets of the middle classes.



> cut the rate by 25% (a small reduction, in your words), and hope and pray that wouldn't blow an enormous hole in the provincial budget?


It's spending problem, not a taxing problem.
We can discuss revenue neutrality and the most optimum type of taxation until the cows come home, but until the fundamental problem of spending addiction is addressed, nothing will change.

So where and when does all this tax increases end...when is enough enough?
Taxes are creeping up on us both overtly as well as surreptitiously year after year.

And yes you are right - carbon taxes is the next thing.
Of course it will be revenue neutral as well, how can it not be?



> So, which hospital do you want closed? Which roads should be left to fall into disrepair?


We can talk about that a little bit later, but first how about we start with this list:
- The 8% annualized pay and benefits increases that the provincial govt. awarded itself, when the rest of the working population barely get 2% annual pay raises.
- The $1B from the e-Health Scam
- The $1M paid to the ex Health Minister as Golden Handshake
- The 4% under-the-table annual increases to the public sector union after telling the provincial parliament that no further increases were negotiated
- The 4% annual increases the Toronto council awarded itself

There are scores of such wastes just in the last 2 years.

The ironical thing is that hospitals are indeed starved of cash, roads are indeed falling apart - inspite of all these revenue neutral (and non neutral) taxes.
The problem lies elsewhere.


----------



## slacker (Mar 8, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> ...
> It was timed to deliver maximum damage to the pockets of the middle classes.
> ...


Hi Harold, 

Can you elaborate about what you know about the government's plans to damage the middle class?

Isn't that treason?

Thanks,
Slacker


----------



## Karen (Jul 24, 2010)

I'm curious about that comment, too, Harold. Why on earth would any government *deliberately* do something to harm the middle class? Wouldn't that guarantee its defeat at the next election?



> Hey, it's supposed to be revenue neutral, no? Taxing more items, and at a higher rate, doesn't sound like revenue neutrality to me.


The BC government reduced its provincial income tax rate in conjuntion with the implementation of the HST, which was intended to help make the HST revenue neutral. And nobody ever suggested the HST was going to be neutral to every individual in the province - just that it was intended to be revenue neutral to the provincial government. It didn't turn out that way, presumably because government revenues improved due to an improved economy, but I believe that was the intention.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

The gov't DID ensure it's own defeat. The Premier had to resign over it, there was enormous public outrage and a referendum resulted in a defeat of the tax itself. Seems like quite a price for politicians to pay for something "revenue neutral", wouldn't you say?

No, the way the politicians rammed this through without concern for the pockets of the middle class and the comments here about a $3B hit to the coffers by reinstating the PST, tells me this scheme was anything but neutral. I still see the effect of gov't rhetoric and koolaid among many posters here.

As Harold explained, the gov't has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.


----------



## Karen (Jul 24, 2010)

TRM, with all due respect, I sometimes get frustrated with your tendency to misread or misinterpret other peoples' posts. My response to Harold's comment ("It was timed to deliver maximum damage to the pockets of the middle classes.") was not a comment on the wrongs or rights of the HST; it was meant to question the logic of what Harold said. He must have had some reason for saying that a government would *deliberately* time something to deliver maximum damage to the middle classes; maybe he'll explain his reasoning by answering Slacker's question.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

To clarify the following statement from my previous post:

_It was timed to deliver maximum damage to the pockets of the middle classes_

The timing of the events I speak of i.e. implementation of the HST, the increase in hydro rates, the TOU pricing, etc. ensured that the tax revenue of the govt. w.r.t those specific things increased substantially.
We have discussed the hydro rates and TOU extensively on the _Energy Useage_ thread, which was not started by me, however, I have posted my rates, my useage and a copy of my bill on there several months in a row.

All of those changes put together has created a big hole in the pockets of many households inspite of prudent and frugal energy use.

Similarly for the gasoline prices, even though the price at the pumps is not directly controlled by the govt.
However, adding the HST to it caused an overnight increase of 8% in the price of gas - all of which went directly to the govt. in addition to the provincial gasoline tax, the excise tax and of course the omnipresent GST.

Had the recession of 2009 not reduced the base price of gas, quite likely we would have been paying well over $1.60 per litre right now.

Anyhow, the net effect of the timing of all these changes has resulted in deep cuts into the family budget.
There is no way the provincial govt. would not have expected the effect of these policies.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> Hey, it's supposed to be revenue neutral, no?
> Taxing more items, and at a higher rate, doesn't sound like revenue neutrality to me.


The rate was not increased. The PST was 8%, and the provincial portion of the HST is 8%.

The HST was not supposed to be revenue neutral in itself. As part of the basket of tax changes implemented in that budget, it represented a tax cut. Government revenues were reduced over where they would have been otherwise. It was the worst tax grab in history.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

"Anyhow, the net effect of the timing of all these changes has resulted in deep cuts into the family budget.
There is no way the provincial govt. would not have expected the effect of these policies. "

Do you have any evidence to that effect? 

Funny how both families and the government both have less cash in their pocket as a result of the 2009 tax changes. It's almost as if it couldn't be true. Handily, we have lots of information about the effect on provincial revenues available to us. Nothing but whining and anecdotal evidence about the net effect on family budgets. Show us some aggregate statistics about the net effect of the 2009 tax changes on families, and we can talk.

I rest easy knowing that regardless of what happens in October, the HST is here to stay in Ontario. Not even Hudak is willing to stoop to stupid populism and promise to abolish it. I also expect him to pull the full Rob Ford on his promises to exempt additional items from the HST (that is, back down).

You keep saying that government has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Fine. You don't mind the HST as that's the revenue side. Please go lobby for spending cuts--it'd be a much more fruitful use of your time than begging for governments to rack up more debt.


----------



## DanFo (Apr 9, 2011)

It is a spending problem...Governments have a good idea of their intended revenues each year..they need to have budgets that account for about 80% of those revenues with the remaining 20% set aside for cost overruns/unexpected expenses (storms etc) More than a third of my money goes to the government just from income taxes, even more after consumer taxes, I expect some sort of fiscal responsibility for this money. If they keep increasing taxes eventually people and business will begin leaving. The paper mill in Port Hawkesbury NS just annouced their closure due to the costs of doing business in Canada.


----------



## Argonaut (Dec 7, 2010)

When the HST debacle first happened I said I would have been okay with it if the outcome was a flat tax of 10%. Low and behold that's what the compromise option ended up being. As such I didn't really care enough to vote come referendum time. I think the outcome was for the best because it let the people take a stand against the wasteful, bureaucratic, corrupt entity that is the government. 

I hate paying taxes, and consider all tax dollars out of my pocket to vanish into a black hole. Talking with some folks who work for the provincial government, they say there is nothing at all to do in the office and people sit on their hands all day. Meanwhile postal workers are making at least $30/hour in an increasingly irrelevant profession, and they are going on strike to boot.

It's time to start stripping the government to the bare minimum. And it's also time for the government to run a surplus and use the excess capital to buy back our long lost gold reserves.


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

But aurgonaut most people here would not want you to see where your tax dollars are going. They say if we knew, somehow nothing will get done, so it is best to just slip it into general revenue for the good of us all.


----------



## CanadianCapitalist (Mar 31, 2009)

dogcom said:


> most people here would not want you to see where your tax dollars are going...





> they need to have budgets that account for about 80% of those revenues with the remaining 20% set aside for cost overruns/unexpected expenses (storms etc)


How the government spends or plans to spend isn't exactly a secret. Every budget document will tell you in mind numbing detail exactly how the government has spent your money and how it plans to in the future.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

dogcom said:


> But aurgonaut most people here would not want you to see where your tax dollars are going. They say if we knew, somehow nothing will get done, so it is best to just slip it into general revenue for the good of us all.


Just because Tax A goes to Spending Item B does not mean it is being spent well.

Dedicating taxes like that is a bit of a fiction anyway, and would probably lead to more waste. It's just a simple minded way to run a huge organization. It's like McDonalds saying that Big Macs have to pay for rent, Quarter Pounders pay for the electricity, Chicken Nuggets and McFlurries pay for labour, etc. It's just ridiculous.

You should definitely know how money is being spent. It just doesn't matter whether tax A or tax B is funding the spending. The important thing is that the taxes we use aren't stupid taxes that cause a lot of economic harm per dollar revenue raised.


----------



## Sampson (Apr 3, 2009)

andrewf said:


> Dedicating taxes like that is a bit of a fiction anyway, and would probably lead to more waste. It's just a simple minded way to run a huge organization. It's like McDonalds saying that Big Macs have to pay for rent, Quarter Pounders pay for the electricity, Chicken Nuggets and McFlurries pay for labour, etc. It's just ridiculous.


As a shareholder, I would like to know what the margins on specific items are (although this could reduce their competitive advantage - and you might see a whole bunch of Fake MaCFlurry places opening up in China).


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

I have been talking to some small business owners since this issue started and some say their sales have dropped by half since the HST came in. Real estate in the resort areas have lost a lot of buyers from Alberta since the HST came in. So we talk about lost jobs by going back but how about all the lost jobs and revenue since we brought it in.


----------



## slacker (Mar 8, 2010)

I do like indulging on "my friend Sally said" type evidence, but here's what the think tanks have to say:

On the left: http://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/reports/hst
On the right: http://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/opeds/DachisLaurin_VS_Aug11.pdf

Cheers.


----------



## sprocket1200 (Aug 21, 2009)

love no hst! we will now be raising our prices even more!!!

thank you BC!!!


----------

