# Harmonized Sales Tax



## Oldroe (Sep 18, 2009)

Is everybody happy with the harmonized sales tax. It means everything we buy with GST only tax will be increased to the harmonized rate.


----------



## CuriousReader (Apr 3, 2009)

I will never be happy with *ANY* kind of tax considering the way government waste taxpayers' hard earn money on their scandals, partisan-political decisions, overpaid unions, overpaid govt officials with their crazy expenses (expensive meals, etc)


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

CuriousReader said:


> I will never be happy with *ANY* kind of tax considering the way government waste taxpayers' hard earn money on their scandals, partisan-political decisions, overpaid unions, overpaid govt officials with their crazy expenses (expensive meals, etc)


Unlike the private sector with its scandal-free record; scrupulous neutrality in political affairs; modestly paid executives; and parsimonious expense accounts?

Yes, the HST is a revenue grab, but Ontario needs the money to cover its deficits, and the feds already reduced the GST from 7% to 5% (before the National Debt was paid off, against the advice of all financial experts). So if you look at it from the point of view of where you were before the feds reduced the GST you are no further behind.


----------



## CuriousReader (Apr 3, 2009)

OhGreatGuru said:


> Unlike the private sector with its scandal-free record; scrupulous neutrality in political affairs; modestly paid executives; and parsimonious expense accounts?


At least I dont get enforced to share my money with them 

My point is not that we shouldnt pay taxes, I agree with paying taxes for public services - but do govt officials really need to spend thousands if not ten of thousands of dollars on a dinner? 

of course there's only so much you can do to control private companies and they are not exactly the ideal / best thing / scandal-free, but then again, that's exactly they call them *private* instead of *public*


----------



## Alexandra (Apr 3, 2009)

No, I'm totally pissed off about it. I don't think people realize how much this is going to affect them - but it will when they get their first bill for a service that used to only charge GST... It kills me that everyone seems to have accepted this tax grab with a sigh and a shrug.

And I don't buy the government's excuse that it will be cheaper for companies to implement a single tax than two. Companies already have systems in place for collecting and paying two taxes...and the government sure wasn't too concerned about this when they introduced GST way back when.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

No one likes taxes. But the cost of government services (and the provincial debt) have to be paid for somehow. The question is how best to do that? Most economists say value added taxes (like GST or HST) are better than income taxes. Would you prefer another income tax surcharge like the "Ontario Health Premium? But I admit I have reservations about the impact of the HST on essential commodities like utilities, which consumers cannot easily cut back on using.


----------



## Rickson9 (Apr 9, 2009)

Alexandra said:


> It kills me that everyone seems to have accepted this tax grab with a sigh and a shrug


It's the Canadian thing to do.


----------



## sprocket1200 (Aug 21, 2009)

as a business owner we applaud the efficiencies that will take place. as for it being a tax grab, it is a good one. consumption taxes are generally favoured over income or wealth taxes.

as much as i hate the waste i see, i am glad i live in a country with many of the social services we have in our society. we should be proud. 

the only things i would like to improve are the inefficiencies and reducing the size of gov't.

oh, and paying off that debt!


----------



## Squeegee (Aug 25, 2009)

For all the complaints about inefficiency in government, take a critical look at your own private enterprise. Are there no inefficiencies? Wasted time? Wasted money? Lame ideas from head office that go nowhere? Resources blown on doomed ventures? Projects that need to be re-started because of poor planning?

My guess is that if your organization includes more than a dozen people, there is plenty of waste. As organizations get bigger, it becomes easier and easier to find individual instances of sheer waste. To not find numerous examples in government, which is perhaps the biggest organization of all, would be more surprising.

I may be in the minority, but overall I feel like I get pretty decent value for my tax dollars. I generally feel safe, I have the opportunity to earn a good living, clean water comes out of my faucet, my family gets annual medical check-ups from well trained physicians, I don't need to bribe officials at city hall to get a building permit, the police don't issue me a ticket unless I really was speeding, I can travel from coast to coast on paved roads, and when I am old and gray I will get a little cheque every month to help me get by. Not a bad way to live, compared with much of the rest of the world.


----------



## CuriousReader (Apr 3, 2009)

not meaning to sound harsh or anything ... just trying to open a discussion and give opinion here. And I dont mean to specifically point to Squeegee



Squeegee said:


> and when I am old and gray I will get a little cheque every month to help me get by


This sounds like mentality of quite a lot of people in Canada, not necessarily just when they are old, some people can do this even if they are at age where they can work. The mentality of relying on government support rather than trying to provide for yourself - something I see as lazy mentality. 

I would rather work hard for myself, make my own savings and rely on myself for my retirement. Yes, a governement support would of course be nice (I've been paying taxes afterall), but it's not like I wont get by without them.

Yes, I agree that in any country there will be some people who dont have basic necessities, and kudos to Canada that have pretty good welfare system to help these people. BUT at the same time, a good welfare system makes people lazy, because if they can just do nothing and still get money for free, why would they bother to do work? (I realize the money may not be much, but still). 

My background comes from a country with pretty much non-existent government support. So in order to survive, you better work your *** off, or you probably someday just gonna die on the street. It gives you something like "survival of the fittest" mentality, which at the same time mean you get rewarded accordingly for your effort.

Hence come the issue of taxation, ... (again my argument might be generalization and a bit of boundary-case examples), people who work hard and get their reward are highly taxed and "forced" to share the fruit of their work with others who dont bother to put in the effort. How is that fair?

I am not saying I disagree with taxation and public services, I agree that taxes and public services are necessary but it's only fair to certain extent, after which point it just become a money-grab for the government and the hard-worker are "forced" to their reward with the lazy people.

Again, no offence or anything just my opinion which might be worded stronger than my thoughts are. And please no "then dont live in Canada" arguments


----------



## investnoob (Jun 29, 2009)

Curious Reader, I understand and agree with many of your points. But be honest now. Was your standard of living better in this other country you were living in?

If not, I suspect its because of the social safety net that Canada has. It doesn't just benefit the lazy. It benefits everyone. When the poor or unemployed (many times people are poor or unemployed through no fault of their own) have a safety net to rely on, it benefits everyone.


----------



## CuriousReader (Apr 3, 2009)

investnoob said:


> Curious Reader, I understand and agree with many of your points. But be honest now. Was your standard of living better in this other country you were living in?
> 
> If not, I suspect its because of the social safety net that Canada has. It doesn't just benefit the lazy. It benefits everyone. When the poor or unemployed (many times people are poor or unemployed through no fault of their own) have a safety net to rely on, it benefits everyone.


Standard of living - I guess I should say yes, I have better standard of living where I came from (in terms of wealth and what I can get for my money there). May be then you'll be asking what the heck I am doing in Canada ... well, I came here for education, and now I am already working - And currently thinking to go back home sometime in the future for many reasons. One of the bigger reasons will be building wealth.

I agree to some extent it does benefit everyone, but after certain point, it becomes a wealth distribution from the hard working ones to the lazier ones. 

One example (again, might be a bit extreme): I am paying EI premiums (I just happen to read that it might increase quite significantly) but let say I never out of job and never claim those EI, then basically those money was just distributed away from me. True that if I dont pay EI premium then I wont get EI in turn when I lose my job, but the risk of me needing EI is very minimal and not worth for me paying the premiums - I would rather save the money myself (and create my own personal "EI") rather than giving it to the government.

So the argument is that I would rather build my own safety net, because if it's my own, then when I dont need that safety net, the money is still mine. Whereas with safety net done by government, for some people (including me), it becomes more of a wealth distribution away from us to other people.

Again, I have to stress that it's not that I disagree totally with paying taxes / EI premiums, just considering the current rate I am paying for in comparison to what I get in return.


----------



## investnoob (Jun 29, 2009)

Hi CuriousReader, by standard of living I don't just mean purchase power and wealth. What I mean is, what is it like to live in a major city where you used to live? What are the crime rates like? What is like to deal with your local and central governments? What is the quality of housing like? What is health care like? That kind of thing. If its better, then you have us beat! But, please don't go! Stay, we need more people like you to finance our government entitlements! 

If some of these are worse thAn in Canada, I suspect part of it (not all of it) may be due to how the "welfare net" or "social safety net" is constructed.

I do understand the frustration of EI. I have payed the max in premiums now for over 12 years. If I were free somehow to use that to become self-insured, I'd have almost 10,000 bucks. Of course, the upshot is that if i ever do become unemployed, I'll almost a year's worth (is the max around 16K?) of ei benefits. Yes, its unlikely that I will ever need it, but I do see the benefit as it means people who do use the benefit will have a better quality of life - and my life will benefit as well.

And, I don't know how you know that people who use EI are lazier? I guess you could make an argument that a lot of people do tend try max out their ei benefits when they use them. That is, when they are on ei, there really isn't much incentive to find work until the benefit has run out. I don't know anyone who has done this, but I'm sure people do do this - I can agree that this is sad.

Also, what I don't agree with is our government using the ei surplus to finance debts for other program spending. That is baloney. It should either be used to fund an ei reserve or should be given back.


----------



## investnoob (Jun 29, 2009)

Oh and for the record, I think HST is a smart way to go. But I wonder how it effects people who mainly work in the service industry.

Lets say you are a consultant. You would now have to charge hst on your services I'm guessing. Under the old system would you have to charge pst?

If not, then people using consulting services would see a huge price increase. I guess the gov. of ontario could argue that consulting services own cost of business would go down due to the other tax reforms - but really would it be enough to offset the increase their customers pay in tax? I'm not convinced it would. 

I mean a consultant's main expenditure is his/her own time - and not the use of other purchased goods. I Hope I'm making sense.


----------



## CuriousReader (Apr 3, 2009)

I guess that "standard of living" would depend on where you are at the "hierarchy" of the population (by that I mean, if you are one of the low income people, then yeah, your standard of living sucks, worse than Canada, ... but if you are middle / upper class people, then it sure is a lot better than Canada.

I dont have numbers, but having lived there for years, in terms of crime rates, I dont see it being any worse than Canada. In fact, Toronto probably a lot worse. And I do lived in the capital.

Dealing with governments ... just like any developing countries, you need to know the system, back doors and stuff ... bribery and corruption is still very much part of the government, although it has been decreasing over the last few years, but you probably still need to deal with that. May be not too much, one thing I have done probably giving "lunch money" to the police when they pull me over for no good reason, trust me when that sort of thing happen, even though you are absolutely innocent, you dont want to give them your driving license, because it will end up costing you more later  It sounds bad to live with that kind of situation, but it's really not all that bad, it's not like you do this once a month, or even once a year. Day-to-day live is just very much like living here (apart from Winter )

Health care wise ... again, if you have enough money (middle class working people have enough), then you can get good health care. If you are one of the poorer ones, then you are out of luck. If you are rich, then good for you.

So you see, considering education background that I have and the jobs the potential earning that I have when I go back home, it's a lot more beneficial to live back home. 

Although for higher education (university), you definitely better of studying abroad, but then you'll have no problem with paying international tuition because of the wealth that you build already. Imagine this ... how much does it cost for you (Canadians) to go to university here? like $20,000 for 4-years honour degree? It cost international student over $90,000 just for tuition and school fees. 

So after a certain threshold (in terms of the job and earning that I have if I go back home - this usually works for management position / owning your own business), it's no-brainer that it's better than Canada in every aspect. But at the same time, if you are just an average lower-level worker, then yeah Canada would be a better place.

In any case, I think my argument is not directly pointed to HST, it's more towards the welfare and economy system here, the taxes, the EI, etc ... and hence, HST is just another cost that I can definitely prefer not to pay.


----------



## CuriousReader (Apr 3, 2009)

Thinking about it ... may be government corruption in developing countries (or at least in my home country) is still better - at least in terms of what it cost me - than all the spending scandal lately, especially Ontario.


----------



## ghostryder (Apr 5, 2009)

CuriousReader said:


> I agree to some extent it does benefit everyone, but after certain point, it becomes a wealth distribution from the hard working ones to the lazier ones.


Joseph Heath's book "Filthy Lucre" has a very interesting chapter on personal responsibilty / moral hazard. He is far more eloquent than I so...




> _This brings us, finally, to the fallacy underlying the "personal responsibility" crusade of the right. Conservatives blame government handouts for undermining the spirit of self-reliance. This is just a moralizing way of describing a generic problem with insurance systems, whenre indemnity ("handouts") tends to generate moral hazard ("irresponsibility"). What conservatives fail to realize is that the moral hazard effect in question is a generic feature of any type of insurance system-it has nothing to do with the question of public or private ownership. There is, however, a prior selection effect that gets ignored. Because private insurance markets are so prone to failure in the face of information asymmetries, the type of insurance that is usually prone to moral hazard or adverse selection tends to be feasible only when provided by the "insurer of last resort": the state. So it doesn't make much sense to blame government for the moral hazard. It's usually because of the moral hazard problem that the government is running the program in the first place._





CuriousReader said:


> One example (again, might be a bit extreme): I am paying EI premiums (I just happen to read that it might increase quite significantly) but let say I never out of job and never claim those EI, then basically those money was just distributed away from me. True that if I dont pay EI premium then I wont get EI in turn when I lose my job, but the risk of me needing EI is very minimal and not worth for me paying the premiums - I would rather save the money myself (and create my own personal "EI") rather than giving it to the government.


But of course EI at it's core is exactly what it's name implies. Insurance. I own a house and have homeowners insurance. I will be paying for that insurance as long as I own my home. But I sure hope I never have to make a claim. Such is the nature of insurance. You may spend a long time, and significant $$ paying for it, but you hope you never have to make a claim. I have life insurance too, but I would rather live than have it pay out. Not many people can afford to "self-insure" for all risks. It's the pooling of risk that makes insurance useful.

Interestingly, while you feel that you can afford to self insure, many people cannot. But that is why EI is like any other insurance plan. By pooling risk (and cost) it is cheaper on average for everyone. 




CuriousReader said:


> So the argument is that I would rather build my own safety net,


But how long would it take for someone to build their own safety net? What happens if you need that net before it is built? There in lies the advantage to participating in an insurance plan that pools risk and cost.


----------



## Arcaneind (Apr 3, 2009)

*My 2 Cents*

I think the HST is good solely for the opportunity to reduce the duplication of services. My understanding is the Federal government is collecting the HST for both themselves and the province, then sending the province a cheque for their cut. In effect you are eliminating the provinces department that is doing pretty well the same job as the Fed's department.

Nobody likes paying taxes and nobody likes paying taxes that are given to non-transparent and wasteful governments. That said, Canada is getting better with this and no country is immune. I choose to view taxes more as the cost of the excellent services that we do get (roads, police, health care, etc) and my charitable contribution (EI, Disability Insurance, etc).

I love all the people that assume that they would be the cream of the crop in a system without the safety nets that we have. One bad decision or circumstance and they could be living in desolation for life.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

CuriousReader said:


> ....
> 
> I agree to some extent it does benefit everyone, but after certain point, it becomes a wealth distribution from the hard working ones to the lazier ones.
> 
> One example (again, might be a bit extreme): I am paying EI premiums (I just happen to read that it might increase quite significantly) but let say I never out of job and never claim those EI, then basically those money was just distributed away from me.



Of course it's a form of wealth re-distribution. These programs were created by the generation that grew up in the Great Depression, with 25+% unemployment and almost no government relief. They elected governments who put programs in place to make sure it never happens again, and we should all be grateful they did.

Regarding why you should pay EI if you never collect it, the same could be said of any term life insurance policy - you hope you never collect, and your premiums pay for those who do. (Not that there aren't things that need reforming about EI)


----------



## CuriousReader (Apr 3, 2009)

OhGreatGuru said:


> Regarding why you should pay EI if you never collect it, the same could be said of any term life insurance policy - you hope you never collect, and your premiums pay for those who do. (Not that there aren't things that need reforming about EI)


It is an insurance after all I know ... but at least with health/life/auto insurance, I get to make my own choice. Depending on my own calculation of the risk, I can make my own decision and have some control on how much I want to.


----------



## Berubeland (Sep 6, 2009)

Well Curious Reader the UN just did a statistical survey of every country and found Canada ranked 4th in the world.

http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/country_fact_sheets/cty_fs_CAN.html

Also I have had some pretty surprising and not so nice things happen to me in my life. You can also be a have not very quickly. Illness, divorce, job loss are all things that can also happen to you. 

As someone who deals with people who are lower income who benefit from some of these social programs I can tell you that the majority are far from lazy. The number one victim of poverty is the mother and children. You really haven't lived life on the wild side until you evict your first single mother with four children. The other main reason is drug and alcohol abuse. And of course mental illness. 

Two points about wealth redistribution that benefit everyone...

The stimulative effect of those government checks greases the wheels of our whole economy. I read something from the states that calculated the benefit of $1 in food stamps had a stimulus effect of $1.56 to the economy. I can tell you within a day of getting their money most social assistance recipients are broke. They get their money and then pay their rent, pay a few bills, pay Money Mart to cash their check buy some food and that's it. So all the money the government gives them goes right back into the economy providing jobs which is good for you.

Toronto a large multicultural city has a very low crime rate. This is because by assisting people they are not as desperate as they would be if we did not have these social programs like health care and Welfare and child tax credit and old age pension and EI. My husband comes from Texas and a town of 20,000 has a higher crime rate than Toronto. I think this can be directly attributed to the lack of support for their fellow man. This is good for all Canadians. Those gated communities are expensive.

In any case I don't begrudge people on EI, Social Assistance, ODSP their rather small stipends. EI max is $1600, SA max is $575 for single person, ODSP max is $1000 per month. I met a lady today who is on ODSP and has had a knee replacement in her 40's. I'm sure she'd rather be working rather than on crutches. She had her own business before. 

So you'd rather be in charge of your own insurance plans for all these benefits? These are the minimum plan you are free to contribute much more and you should. My sincere wish is that not one of you or the people I know ever have to use any of these programs.


----------



## sprocket1200 (Aug 21, 2009)

I agree with the EI should be more like real insurance idea. give us choice with premiums that reflect them. and let me opt out entirely if I so desire.

as for $1 having a stimulus effect of $1.56, why doesn't the gov't send everyone $100,000 then? we could all provide $156,000 in stimulus.....
oh, i guess it doesn't really work that way, does it?


----------



## Berubeland (Sep 6, 2009)

Sprocket it only works when you give the money to poor people. Poor people turn around and buy the luxuries they need, like groceries. So for $10 then they will buy $10 worth of groceries which pays the business which employs people who also spend money end result $15.56 

If the government give the money to you you will put it in your savings account because you don't really need it. End result to the economy 0$ circulating.

I did not make this up. Why do you think our government has so many programs for the poor? How much do you think the poor save? Have you ever been to the grocery store on the 20th of the month when child tax credit comes out?


----------



## stardancer (Apr 26, 2009)

Berubeland said:


> Well Curious Reader the UN just did a statistical survey of every country and found Canada ranked 4th in the world.
> 
> http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/country_fact_sheets/cty_fs_CAN.html
> 
> ...


Very well put. I also work with the lower income people (in the tax field). I would say that 90% of them are well meaning and deserve the assistance. The other 10% who take advantage of the system and create their own messes don't negate the first 90%. In fact, a family member who was just cut off her private work disability is desperately seeking a job and will go on ODSP only as a last resort. This is a girl who has only 5-10 years left, due to her conditions, and her medications cost up to $2500/month. There is always a story behind the person.


----------



## Robillard (Apr 11, 2009)

I'm in BC, and I'm generally in favour of the shift from the PST to the HST. I expect that there will be some winners and some losers, but I think the whole things is supposed to be revenue neutral. Even though the HST may technically generate more revenue than the PST, the provincial government is supposed to be raising the basic personal exemption to offset the difference. I'm generally in favour of tax simplification, and the HST is a simpler tax to administer than the PST. Also, I think someone mentioned it, but value-added taxes, like the GST/HST, are simpler to administer and harder to evade than income taxes; however, they tend to also be regressive (poor people may pay a larger proportion of their income as valued-added taxes than wealthier taxpayers). Unfortunately, the benefits of simplification generally accrue to businesses. I'm not expecting their owners to share much of the benefit of their reduced compliance costs with the rest of society.


----------



## bean438 (Jul 18, 2009)

Rickson9 said:


> It's the Canadian thing to do.


Bang on Rickson! Stephen Jarislowsky , the canadian billionaire sums up Canadas quite nicely:

A non crusading nation that has never really had any bad times, and had to fight for anything, and as long as everyone is doing reasonably OK, then gosh darn it, things could be much worse! So, we just take it as it comes.

He also quotes a new comer to Canada who said Canada is a first rate country with second rate people who elect third rate politicians.


----------



## bean438 (Jul 18, 2009)

Berubeland said:


> Sprocket it only works when you give the money to poor people. Poor people turn around and buy the luxuries they need, like groceries. So for $10 then they will buy $10 worth of groceries which pays the business which employs people who also spend money end result $15.56
> 
> If the government give the money to you you will put it in your savings account because you don't really need it. End result to the economy 0$ circulating.
> 
> I did not make this up. Why do you think our government has so many programs for the poor? How much do you think the poor save? Have you ever been to the grocery store on the 20th of the month when child tax credit comes out?


The gov't gives money to the poor because it is recycled into the gov't coffers via cigarette, alcohol taxes, and lottery.

Groceries? Who are you kidding? Come to Winnipeg for a reality check.

Oh, and cover that heart up on your sleeve. It is getting cold out.
Let me guess, you voted NDP, or Liberal??


----------



## WarrenC (Jun 23, 2009)

Robillard said:


> I'm in BC, and I'm generally in favour of the shift from the PST to the HST. I expect that there will be some winners and some losers, but I think the whole things is supposed to be revenue neutral. Even though the HST may technically generate more revenue than the PST, the provincial government is supposed to be raising the basic personal exemption to offset the difference. I'm generally in favour of tax simplification, and the HST is a simpler tax to administer than the PST. Also, I think someone mentioned it, but value-added taxes, like the GST/HST, are simpler to administer and harder to evade than income taxes; however, they tend to also be regressive (poor people may pay a larger proportion of their income as valued-added taxes than wealthier taxpayers). Unfortunately, the benefits of simplification generally accrue to businesses. I'm not expecting their owners to share much of the benefit of their reduced compliance costs with the rest of society.


I agree with you. I think businesses will essentially "pass along the savings" to consumers, through competition. Regarding low income individuals, they will still be getting what was once the "GST rebate" correct? I also heard that these payments were not reduced when the GST was reduced to 6% and then 5%, so they are making out ok in that regard.

Raising the minimum exemption is the way to go as well. I'd be happy if all future tax breaks were simply raising that. It helps everyone, and focuses on the lowest income earners.


----------



## WarrenC (Jun 23, 2009)

bean438 said:


> The gov't gives money to the poor because it is recycled into the gov't coffers via cigarette, alcohol taxes, and lottery.
> 
> Groceries? Who are you kidding? Come to Winnipeg for a reality check.
> 
> ...


Let me guess, you're in favour of private healthcare?


----------



## Berubeland (Sep 6, 2009)

I'll start voting when they start prosecuting the liars for fraud. Making decisions based on fabrications is something I do not participate in. 

Yes I would rather have my heart on my sleeve than have no heart at all.


----------



## bean438 (Jul 18, 2009)

WarrenC said:


> Let me guess, you're in favour of private healthcare?


Yup. Either that or start charging user fees for the ER. Our system is set up for abuse because it is free. 
You don't tie up an ambulance, and an ER because your toe is sore (55+age group) nor should you call an ambulance for a taxi ride (natives/welfare). If people had to pay a fee for non life threatening ER treatment they would think twice. Ditto if welfare or blue cross didn't cover your ambulance trip for the 3rd time this week.


----------



## Berubeland (Sep 6, 2009)

*Our system is set up for abuse because it is free*. 

Please substantiate this comment. 

In my experience this is not true. Most people do not enjoy going to the Doctor. It's not like people sit around wondering what to do and decide to go to the ER. However minor nuisance things you take up with your Dr saves money before it becomes something serious. The reason people go to the ER with these problems is because they occur after Dr's are closed or can't see you. I don't imagine that a "user fee" would be any more of a disincentive than the 6-7 hour wait for non critical conditions. 

Interestingly enough you are charged at least here in Ontario for ambulances. It costs about $50.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Berubeland said:


> *Our system is set up for abuse because it is free*.
> 
> Please substantiate this comment.
> 
> In my experience this is not true.


It is partly true.
The Canadian health care system is indeed abused.
For example, it's abused by shadow "residents" i.e. people not really physically living here, yet using the public health care as permanent residents.
This type of abuse is very common among the new immigrant population.

The EI system is abused by folks who are able to (by various means) work for a certain amount of time and then "go away" on EI.
Come back after a year to rinse and repeat.
It's a sabbatical funded by the tax payers.

The general benefits system (CCTB, GST credits, etc.) are abused by folks who are able (by tax avoidance means) to enjoy all these benefits while maintaining a comfortable, even luxurious lifestyle.

In addition, the society as a whole has made it possible for certain groups of people to enjoy more benefits for the same amount of work (or less) than others.
I am appalled by the whole bailouts and various stimulus moneys doled out to the auto sector and the financial sector.
The amounts of money doled out to long tenure workers of auto companies recently laid off is shameful.
Some workers with 10 years or more of "service" in the 3 auto companies have made off with over $200,000 in severance payments.
No offense to the work ethics of the workers themselves, but as a society it is shameful that we allow this to happen, while at the same time, millions of others are working equally hard (or more) simply because our employers do not enjoy the same political clout as the auto companies.


----------



## Berubeland (Sep 6, 2009)

Saying it is partly true does not make it true. Nor do exceptions prove the rule. 

For example if I said people win money at casino's does it make it true? Statistically people lose money at casinos and the fact that my mother's cousin's sister won $100000 slots jackpot in Vegas with a quarter does not change that. It is the same for health care. I don't think it is true that people abuse health care. Health Care is not like a season's pass to Wonderland. Last week I had a flex sigmoidoscopy I'm certainly not going to book another one this week because I had such a good time and it was free. I am following this same argument in the States and it just doesn't make any sense. Flu shots are free go get as many as you want. Ok so some shadow people are doing some malignant thing to get free health care they are not entitled to. Again this is very self limiting. I don't believe that they will get extra flu shots because it is fun. How much $ does this amount to a percentage of the Health Care costs ?? How much extra does it come to at the end of the year on my taxes? That is the question. My guess is pretty minor. I can say this because my husband currently has no legal status here and has to pay for his healthcare here. There are many free clinics that offer health care to people with no status for free and when I have gone..... not too busy. Canada as a whole treats health care as a human right. What a great country we live in.


Ok let me understand this..... you are against people receiving some windfall kind of random "excessive" amount of money because everyone can't get it. 

Personally I am happy for them. Good for them I wish it was me. I'm pretty sure though that the the severance pay is based on the law. 

Also working hard doesn't get you a prize and I don't care and neither does anyone else. Concentrate on working smart. This is a much more effective way to maximize your income.


----------



## CuriousReader (Apr 3, 2009)

Berubeland said:


> Concentrate on working smart. This is a much more effective way to maximize your income.


= join a union? Then strike when u dont get what you want 

... jk


----------



## Berubeland (Sep 6, 2009)

Yes exactly.... if you have to dig ditches for a living make sure your part of the laborer's union... rather than getting paid 3 times less by some starving contractor that tries to short you on your pay every week.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Berubeland said:


> Saying it is partly true does not make it true.


You cannot claim either that the original poster's statement is not true.
The statement we are talking about is: _Our system is set up for abuse because it is free_.
And your comment is: _In my experience this is not true._

I simply stated that it is partly true, and cited examples of people abusing the "free" system.
So your experience differs from mine, and that's what makes it impossible to determine this one way or another.

Fact that your husband is not abusing the system proves that you are honest law-abiding citizens - it doesn't prove that everyone else is.
Abuse is widespread - how much it costs the taxpayers is impossible to determine.
I'm sure it's more than one or two extra flu shots for non residents.


----------



## Berubeland (Sep 6, 2009)

Actually I asked the original poster to substantiate that people abuse the healthcare in this country. 

The reason I did that is because the argument does not make sense to me. 

Then Harold you said "For example, it's abused by shadow "residents" i.e. people not really physically living here, yet using the public health care as permanent residents. This type of abuse is very common among the new immigrant population."

I then recounted my own experience in which FREE medical care is available for non status people with practically no waiting whatsoever. This makes abusing the system entirely unnecessary. There is no motivation. 

I am asking you where you got the information on "shadow people" and their "abuse" of our healthcare. Please substantiate that statement.


----------



## osc (Oct 17, 2009)

I am for HST. 
However I think our tax system is unfair and favors lucky people. By lucky I mean people who where born in a rich family, people who were born with significant genetic advantages, people who bet the right direction of the stock market, etc. 
We currently have the highest tax bracket starting at ridiculously low levels (little over 100k). Basically we are taxing the rich (people making over $500k/year) and very rich (over $1M/year) in the same bracket as upper-middle class (people making 100k-300k/year). 
I think we should lower the taxes for everyone making less than $120k/year and then add additional brackets with increased rates up to 70%-80% for people making over $10M/year. 
And we should also start to really tax pollution and environmental damage. The carbon tax that we have in BC is a start, but I wish it was higher and expanded, especially to industrial polluters and those industries that destroy the environment (like the logging industry).


----------



## osc (Oct 17, 2009)

The problem in this country is not with the very poor being helped by the rest of us (and sometimes abusing the system). 
The problem is with the rich and very rich who would prefer to keep the rest of us where we are, mainly working to make them richer. That's why it takes so many decades of hard work (and gambling in the stock markets) to gain one's freedom.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Berubeland said:


> I then recounted my own experience in which FREE medical care is available for non status people with practically no waiting whatsoever. This makes abusing the system entirely unnecessary. There is no motivation.
> 
> I am asking you where you got the information on "shadow people" and their "abuse" of our healthcare. Please substantiate that statement.


The instance you posted is your own personal experience.
Just because _you_ are a law abiding member of society doesn't mean everyone else is.
You cannot prove conclusively that there are absolutely _no_ other people in this country that abuse the health system.
I can't obviously give you names and addresses, but I can think of at least two dozen folks I have come across that "abuse" the system.
For example, a "permanent" resident not physically residing in Ontario is not entitled to the health care system (there is a waiting period).
However, fake permanent residents maintain residential addresses in ON simply to be able to use the health care system.
There is no direct cross-checking between the doctors/hospitals and the CBSA/CIC for entry/exit of landed immigrants.
This loophole is exploited in many ways, not just health care.
CCTB and CESG grants are other examples.
I admire your confidence in our fellow citizens, but unfortunately, there is extensive abuse in the system.


----------



## Berubeland (Sep 6, 2009)

Right i understand that we disagree..... I am asking you to substantiate your argument.

Interestingly it appears that Dr's are doing funky business

http://www.thespec.com/article/273052

Americans coming over the border..... article from 1993..... not bothering with the ancient link. 

Apparently the real fraudsters are not the shadow immigrants but rather the actual Dr's. Too Funny ....

The cost of fraud... from this website http://www.chcaa.org/education.php

Various estimates indicate that from 2 to 10% of every health care dollar in North America is lost to fraud. In Canada, over $120 billion is spent annually on health care. That would mean that cost of health care fraud could surpass $12 billion each year. These figures represent enough money to drastically revitalize Canadian medicare and purchase more than 3000 MRI machines.

I like the phrasing when it comes to the numbers..... health care fraud could surpass 12 billion, it could also be 2 billion, I guess it could be 60 billion uhmmm we're not quite sure. So no real numbers. If you go to the site the convictions are underwhelming and the worst offenders are Dr's.


----------



## bean438 (Jul 18, 2009)

Come to winnipeg and ask any paramedic or ER nurse of the record of course.... God forbid the race card is played.... About how many of our native population routinely phone 911 complaining of (insert any key word for emergency response). 
This gets a free ambulance ride to the ER and a few free meals as the staff half to rule out everything, fearing that should one of "them" dies there will be cries of racism. 

Should I mention the ones that feed their kids god knows what to make them sick so the whole fammily gets a free plane ride into winnipieg so they can gamble at the casino? Uhhhh I mean so they can provide support for the "sick" child. 

I don't mind paying taxes but for anyone to WANT more taxes? Hello?

No wonder taxes can go up. Typical Canadian glass half empty "we could be doing worse" attitude.


----------



## Kamcat (Dec 11, 2009)

*What about tax on tax?*



Oldroe said:


> Is everybody happy with the harmonized sales tax. It means everything we buy with GST only tax will be increased to the harmonized rate.


Here in BC we pay a carbon tax on natural gas (and on many other things that I haven't checked out). I was astounded on checking a recent Terasen gas bill to discover we're being charged GST on the carbon tax. So...you know what that means when HST comes into effect - 12% tax on top of 8% carbon tax. Terasen said it was a federal matter, my federal MP never did respond to my concerns. I did get a response from my provincial MLA's office, advising it was a matter that would require legislative change & I should write a letter!


----------

