# Ont. Pre-election fearmongering or what?



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Source: Nepean/Barrhaven EMC community newspaper, June 23.

Article is saying that the PC party has previously warned about a HST increase in the event of a Liberal win, and now they are adding the likelihood
of a carbon tax on gasoline within the next 4 years. McGuinty opted out of
a carbon tax in 2008 proposed by Stephane Dion deciding to implement
"environmental alternatives"..eco tax? Recent speculation is fueling the
possibility of a post election tax added to items hit by HST last year. 

"Tim Hudak is convinced that if Dalton gets back in for a 3rd term, we will
see a 2% (rumoured) rise in the HST or a carbon tax added onto gasoline..
or possibly both."..claims Lisa MacLeod (Nepean-Carleton MPP and 
Opposition Accountabilty critic. She also claims that "they" (McGuinty)
is aware of voter backlash against it, so this is whyh they stopped talking
about it. 
McGinty was overhead to say on the campaign trail in May.."that we will
continue doing what we have been doing".... whatever that means. 

MacLeod says she is nervous that this is an indication he is about to
raise taxes again after the election. 

No response from the McGuinty camp regarding the latest accusations from
the Ont. PC party.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

These may or may not be rumors...only time will tell.
However, it is true that McGuinty is a tax-happy politician and he will continue to find ways of increasing taxes, either directly or surreptitiously.
Under his regime, a carbon tax or more gasoline tax in one shape of form will come...approx. 1 - 2 years into the next term (if he gets re-elected).
Maybe he will simply increase the Ontario provincial gasoline tax instead of creating a new one.
Not to mention that the omnipresent HST will apply on top of it.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> These may or may not be rumors...only time will tell.
> However, it is true that McGuinty is a tax-happy politician and he will continue to find ways of increasing taxes, either directly or surreptitiously.
> Under his regime, a carbon tax or more gasoline tax in one shape of form will come...approx. 1 - 2 years into the next term (if he gets re-elected).
> Maybe he will simply increase the Ontario provincial gasoline tax instead of creating a new one.
> Not to mention that the omnipresent HST will apply on top of it.


Well if he has the mandate to do it, he probably will, as more tax collected
to fuel the tax hungry gov't will be in order.
I tend to agree that whatever he decides (if he gets re-elected) will more
than likely be a hidden tax, like adding some percentage to the existing
Ontario gasoline tax (not the HST..which is more visible to the public). 

By adding a couple of percentage points to a provincial fuel tax would
be the sneaky way to do it...see Ontario fuel taxes..

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


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I really can't see them raising gasoline taxes of all things.

Even still, we need to be grown-ups. Our government is spending substantially more than it is taking in in revenue. We need to make substantial changes, either by cutting spending or raising taxes, to address this problem.

Both sides are pretending this is not the case. Hudak has promised no tax raises and no cuts to 75% of the budget. That sounds like fantasyland (ie, he's lying) talk to me. McGuinty hasn't said much, and I imagine he won't. I'm afraid his strategy might be to continue to borrow money. An HST increase is possible, but depending on how poisonous the tax becomes, it may not be politically feasible.


----------



## slacker (Mar 8, 2010)

Hudak seem perfectly happy with keeping all the Dalton taxes in place. Until I hear him talk about repealing some of these taxes, he has ZERO credibility when he attacks the Liberals on taxation policies.

Not to say the Dalton taxes were good or bad, but he does rub me the wrong way when he called the health premium "not a tax". I really don't get why people are upset about the HST, and seem perfectly fine with the REGRESSIVE health tax. At least the HST is a theoretical improved tax compare to GST/PST. The health premium is REGRESSIVE, that means the more money you make, the less you pay, WTF?

sigh


----------



## DanFo (Apr 9, 2011)

Not sure if i am thinking of the same health premium you are slacker...but with the ontario health premium you pay more as your income increases..you pay nothing if your income is below 20K ...... http://www.rev.gov.on.ca/en/tax/healthpremium/rates.html
i'd rather keep paying the 750 a year for that service since i actually use it.. then get pounded on ontario's surtax which lets us pay some extra tax for simply being successful....


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

slacker said:


> Hudak seem perfectly happy with keeping all the Dalton taxes in place. Until I hear him talk about repealing some of these taxes, he has ZERO credibility when he attacks the Liberals on taxation policies.


Well Hudak is claiming that if elected, he would repeal the PST portion
(which is all he can do) on the home heating and electricity bill.
That would represent a loss of hundreds of millions in tax revenue to
the province..which would (more than likely) add to the deficit.
What he needs to do first is to get a mathematical model that will
provide him with facts on the loss of revenue using an average
electricity and household heating and costs per year..or have a
poll site set up so people can send in their true costs. This way
he could somewhat realize what that promise means in loss of revenue
to the province and whether it would be sustainable.

The pollsters set up one before the Federal election and it was quite 
successfull..not only did the pollsters find out how people felt about
the 4 parties, but some general idea of which way the election would
go..of course the split vote majority the Harper gov't was something that
some of us were not aware of. 



> Not to say the Dalton taxes were good or bad, but he does rub me the wrong way when he called the health premium "not a tax".


A tax or OHIP premium was necessary. Way back when, most Ontarioans
(the poor included), had to pay quartery premiums to OHIP to maintain their health coverage, and add health coverage to any changes in personal status.

That was done away with a "few" years ago (80s?) when the current gov't
changed the rules ( Bob Rae/NDP?) to make the OHIP premium a payroll tax based
on the number of employees. Of course, with a lot of new immigration and rising
health care costs, this was no longer sustainable, so they had no choice
but to introduce a health care tax based on personal income.





> I really don't get why people are upset about the HST, and seem perfectly fine with the REGRESSIVE health tax. At least the HST is a theoretical improved tax compare to GST/PST. *The health premium is REGRESSIVE*, that means the more money you make, the less you pay, WTF?


So is your health...as you get older, the health care costs increase per
individual. The maximum tax ceiling on the health care tax is $900.

The trend in the general population is aging babyboomers,
like myself that need monthly treatments, so I don't mind paying my
"fair share" based on income. I can understand that younger people who
have to pay more than $300 a year, based on their taxable income
and don't really use the health care system are finding it "regressive",
..but if we all use it (eventually), or have free access to it,
somebody has to pay it. 

now for arguments sake...lets look at the OHIP tax for 2010,..
under 20,000 .you pay $0..after all today, that is considered poverty level. 

More than 20K but less than 25K you pay 6% on the extra 5K =$300
now this is a bit unfair..but a lot of the population are part time
employees and still use the health care system..so milk them we shall.

More than 25K but less than 36,000K..a difference of 11K = $300
now this is still reasonable as 2-3 doctors office and 2-3 special tests
will easily eat up the $300

More than 36K but less than 38,500 $300 + 6% of the 2.5K = $450..
ok, this one seems like that taxable income is subsidizing the lower incomes?

More than 38,500 but less than 48,000 = flat $450 
so, for a difference of $9,500 the individual pays only a flat tax?...hmmm??

More than 48,000 but less than 48,600 = $450 + 25% of 600 ($150) =$600
hmm?? where did they find that flawed math? Oh! I see..the individual is
in the next tax bracket, so they are already paying a Ontario surtax on
income. 

More than 48,600 but less than 72,000 = $600
So for a difference of 23,400 the OHIP tax is only $600
now we also need to consider that this individual will also be in a higher
tax bracket to begin with Ontario surtax applied.


more than 72k but less than 72,600 = $600 + 25% of difference ($600)
= $600 + 150 = $750... again a flawed math model being used here,
but we will get them on the additional surtax!

more than 72,600 but less than 200K...a flat $750. Obviously set
up for those people such as Ont gov't employees and politicians to
reduce their taxable income, based on their tax bracket.
Surtax the hell outa them! Let them pay their fair share and not
buy as many $500K homes and BMWs in the driveways! 

more than 200K but less than 200,600 = same silly mathematical formula
where difference of $600 x 25% added to the $750 = $900
and finally for those priviledge to earn above $200,600 in taxable income
..a flat $900

so I think the old adage applies here.."the rich don't pay (their fair share)
and the poor don't pay"..so who does pay?...the middle income earner..
the cash cow that will be milked by two levels of gov't..because..
there are a lot more of them than the rich....and maybe even the poor..
although those demographics are changing with immigration and job exporting!


----------



## CuriousReader (Apr 3, 2009)

HaroldCrump said:


> However, it is true that McGuinty is a tax-happy politician and he will continue to find ways of increasing taxes, either directly or surreptitiously..


And he'll continue to find ways to keep spending and bloating up unions' wallet and benefits, as well as consultants' riches.

McGuinty is proven to be tax happy and union friendly politician who will tax us (mostly middle class) to death and after we are death, he'll tax our dead body.

Hudak dont seem to be a good contender either, and relatively unknown what he's gonna do / be, but I prefer to take that chance than giving McGuinty more time to keep his hands on my wallet.

NDP ... dont even start a conversation about them


----------



## DanFo (Apr 9, 2011)

Carver.." The trend in the general population is aging babyboomers,
like myself that need monthly treatments, so I don't mind paying my
"fair share" based on income. I can understand that younger people who
have to pay more than $300 a year, based on their taxable income
and don't really use the health care system are finding it "regressive","

I agree with the rest you said however the younger people starting out Probably use the system quite a lot as this is usually when they start having children which between pregnancy/ initial child care and new parents rushing to the emergency room for every little thing really eats up a lot of health care costs.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

The health premium/tax has nothing to do with health. They should have raised income tax rates instead if they needed the revenue, but they made the calculation that it was easier to sell the increase if it is tied to health care.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

andrewf said:


> The health premium/tax has nothing to do with health. They should have raised income tax rates instead if they needed the revenue, but they made the calculation that it was easier to sell the increase if it is tied to health care.


Well it must, because it was added afterwards..I think it was McGuinty in
his first term. it was based on some kind of model a few years ago, and
that's why the "tax/premium" is so skewed. Things have changed a lot in
health care in the last 8 years, so the model they used (on the Ontario
tax form) may not be accurate anymore based on population demographics
and wages/salaries. Of course the poor (20k and under, which also includes
new immigrants and their families use the OHIP system to their advantage.
most have never worked or work in this country, but they still get the same
benefits as the ones paying into the system. That is universality at work
just like the OAS.

In Ottawa, hospital wait times are being extended tremendously and unless
you are in cardiac arrest, you can wait 6-8 hrs for treatment of most minor
issues. 

OHIP is not sustainable under the present funding system of 1.5% funding
increase per year. Costs and hospital adminstration have turned it into
a cash eating monster. A few years ago, Ontario was thinking of privatizing
the Liquor stores, but realizing that the LCBO cash cow, once gone, will never
be available to them again, so they have quietly dropped the idea. 

I think that there is going to be a rude awakening shortly..either OHIP
funding is increased by personal taxation (ie "increase the OHIP premiums)
or more cutbacks and bed closures will be necessary as the population
ages demanding more health care and if immigration is not curtailed
to a reasonable level, we are going to be in deep do-do with rising costs.

It's one thing for the politicians to demand more doctors be available for
rural practices, but every doctor added means more OHIP billing and
that money has to come from somewhere.

You can't just hide your head in the sand and pretend that it will go
away somehow..neither Hudak nor McGuinty will be able to fix that
without find creative ways to get revenue from...

a) raising "sin" taxes again..liquor/beer/cigarettes etc...if people can
afford to drink and smoke, which may not be good for their health and
present huge costs to the health care system as they age..
tax them..even to death.

b) tax lotteries, just like in the states..nobody needs $50 million tax free
to live these days, tax at 50% and they still will have 25 million which
is more than enough for most people

c) working class? (they are carrying enough of the load already)

d) rich class (makje them pay a bit more..to subsidize the health care system
for their good fortune..bank executives especially!

e) poor should pay something per doctor visit, even if its $5 to $10 in lieu
of not paying the OHIP premium...of course then..to be fair everyone
would need to pay that user fee.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Lotteries are already a tax on the stupid, with OLG earning significant income operating them--I don't support increasing taxation on them. It's like taxing a life insurance payout.

The health premium has nothing to do with health or entitling one to OHIP. It's just a name for the tax.


----------



## slacker (Mar 8, 2010)

DanFo said:


> Not sure if i am thinking of the same health premium you are slacker...but with the ontario health premium you pay more as your income increases..you pay nothing if your income is below 20K ...... http://www.rev.gov.on.ca/en/tax/healthpremium/rates.html
> i'd rather keep paying the 750 a year for that service since i actually use it.. then get pounded on ontario's surtax which lets us pay some extra tax for simply being successful....


Yes, it's progressive up to a point. Then it becomes regressive. There's a hard upper limit.


----------



## slacker (Mar 8, 2010)

@caverman: Thanks for your thoughtful response. I don't have a problem with taxes that are necessary and reasonable. I am by no means an "anti-tax" person, compare to the more hard-care tax haters on this board.

What I took exception to, is Dalton calling it "see, it's called a premium, it's not a tax." It's frankly insulting, and I'm annoyed that more people have the hate on for the HST, when it's at least a theoretical improvement in tax policy.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

andrewf said:


> Lotteries are already a tax on the stupid, with OLG earning significant income operating them--I don't support increasing taxation on them. *It's like taxing a life insurance payout*.


Big difference between a life insurance payout and a lottery winning, Andrew.
The life insurance payment is generally used to pay off debts, mortgages and
sustain family members after the death of a spouse/income earner.

Lottery winners don't have that to consider when they spend $5 or $10
on a ticket for the super lottery. If they don't win, it's just $5 or $10
tossed out as a sin tax on them. If they win $50 million or even lesser amounts, that is windfall income and they should be pay some tax on it,
even if its just a flat 10% or so.

OLGC just announced that this year they grossed over 6.72 Billion and after
all the payouts, are submitting over 2 Billion to Ontario's coffers to help pay
for hospitals, schools and other such public institutions, not to mention
12 million in "performance bonuses" to OLG employees...estimated to be
around $2000 per employee..

Yes, there are a lot of "losers" out there but amongst them, a few become
winners for nothing more than plunking down a few bucks (or more) on
lottery tickets. That will never change, just like the smokers, who will
pay whatever the going rate is on a pack of cigarettes...




> The health premium has nothing to do with health or entitling one to OHIP. It's just a name for the tax.


Well it may be a tax, but maybe some of it may actually end up in health care?
Hospital funding comes from the Ont gov't, so whether it is direct or transparent,
money is collected and payed out to the hospitals.

I remember years ago, we had to pay actual premiums to OHIP to keep
our entitlement to health care up to date, so we wouldn't have to
pay out of pocket for hospital or doctor visits or blood tests etc.

Whether it was a direct premium payed by an individual or now a tax,
money has to come from somewhere to help pay for rising health care
costs. I don't know how many "poor" people we have in Ontario
now with immigration swelling the ranks in the last few years..and most
of these immigrants end up living in major cities on social assistance and
entitled to free health care. Obviously somebody has to pay their share
as well, whether it is a tax or some form of monetary funding from the
gov't.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

slacker said:


> What I took exception to, is Dalton calling it "see, it's called a premium, it's not a tax." It's frankly insulting, and I'm annoyed that more people have the hate on for the HST, when it's at least a theoretical improvement in tax policy.


Well whatever it is called, it is money collected from Ontario taxpayers
to help pay for their health care. I agree that he didn't think about it
much when he called it a "premium"..but tried to justify the tax as one
because of the old OHIP "premiums" that we used to pay back in the 60s,
70s, and 80s. 
That wasn't exactly fair either, because a single mom on welfare with
1-3 kids had to pay these premiums out of her monthly welfare
allowance and that penalized her.

I think it was Bob Rae and his NDP that came along and decided to make it a "employee health care tax" (EHT) in 1990 on the employers and 
that was in some ways also unfair, because it now shifted the
health care burden onto the employer, amongst all the other benefits 
they had to provide to full time employees.

Neither scheme was workable in the long run, so along comes "uncle dad"..
aka the "tax man" and in his wisdom, decides to make it a tax....payable
based on taxable income, and this isn't a fair system either..

REASONS
- If you don't file your taxes annually (or avoid them), you don't pay the
"health care tax" but you can still go into any emergency room or doctor
and not be denied health care..as long as you have a OHIP card number,
which has nothing to do with CRA.

- The possible hundreds of thousands of people who are not working
or under 20k of taxable income..don't contribute anything, but are still
entitled to health care for them and their families.

- There is a ceiling for higher taxable income earners of $900 max per year.

I am a pensioner, with a taxable income of around $30k.
and I pay my share of the OHIP tax at $300 per year. I don't mind
paying my taxes. 

Now,take a CEO or any manager or successful entreprenuer making 
200K to a million per year..they only have to pay $900
which is only $600 more per year than me.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I would like to see OLG scale back their marketing. The government doesn't show TV adverts of how cool smokers are and how much they enjoy life when they light up.

Lotteries are a regressive form of taxation--it's a good way of keeping poor people poor.


----------



## travelgeek (Nov 29, 2009)

carverman said:


> Source: Nepean/Barrhaven EMC community newspaper, June 23.
> (snip)
> "Tim Hudak is convinced that if Dalton gets back in for a 3rd term, we will
> see a 2% (rumoured) rise in the HST or a carbon tax added onto gasoline..
> or possibly both."


Nova Scotia has already done this (hike HST to 15%), so if McGuinty (or Hudak for that matter) is desperate enough for tax revenue, it can happen here.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

andrewf said:


> I would like to see OLG scale back their marketing. The government doesn't show TV adverts of how cool smokers are and how much they enjoy life when they light up.
> 
> *Lotteries are a regressive form of taxation--it's a good way of keeping poor people poor*.


And addictive gamblers lose their life savings at the casinos too,
and the gov't turns a blind eye on that. There was a TV documentary
on that about some people that are deeply in debt and have lost
everything playing the slots/tables for that elusive win.

Ontario (OLGC) has discovered that there are many people out
there especially the poor... (and the "not so poor"), that have disposal income
eagerly willing to participate in "voluntary taxation", to have a chance at a reward/windfall, that is beyond the financial ability of most Ontarioans, 
especially since it is tax free..which is another incentive to play. 
So they run these change your lifestyle ads. "Imagine"..or "we won!"
and then advertise "next jackpot is XX million..hurry and get your ticket!"

Years ago, they had Wintario...and they advertised heavily on radio/tv
with expensive ads and a jingle.."with Wintario, we all win"..that was
a catchy phrase and helped to make people feel good when they plunked down
$1 for a ticket, and another $1 for the Encore... for a chance at $100k
or "double yer money" with Encore numbers. 
This was very successful and everyone including the ones on welfare that
realy can't afford lotteries, smokes or beer... played it.

Now fast forward into the 21st century..with inflation and costs going up,
OLGC wets the appetite of the gambler in us by offering huge jackpots
of 10, 20 or even 50 mil in the super lotto...so even though the chance
of winning is just as astronomical as going to the moon..people on welfare
and working stiffs plunk down $10 or more on tickets as well as scratch and
win, crosswords, yadda-yadda...
OLGC has a mess of gambling products available these days, not to mention
all the casinos they run..which seem to be full night and day as well.

Gov't understand addictions, but they don't necessarily want the people
to be cured of them..addictions are cash cows..whether it be tobacco,
booze, or gambling.


----------



## slacker (Mar 8, 2010)

andrewf said:


> I would like to see OLG scale back their marketing. The government doesn't show TV adverts of how cool smokers are and how much they enjoy life when they light up.
> 
> Lotteries are a regressive form of taxation--it's a good way of keeping poor people poor.


It's not a tax because it's voluntary. My left leaning progressiveness only goes so far. I respect my fellow citizen's autonomy, and I demand their right to purchase ridiculously unfair chance of winnings with their hard earn dollars.

On the same token, legalize and tax drugs and prostitutions, to reduce crime and increase tax revenue. That, or just start taxing drug dealers, pimps, and prostitutes, I don't really care if it's legalized ....


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

slacker said:


> It's not a tax because it's voluntary. On the same token, legalize and tax drugs and prostitutions, to reduce crime and increase tax revenue. That, or just start taxing drug dealers, pimps, and prostitutes, I don't really care if it's legalized ....


interesting proposal. but first the two levels of gov't would need to make
street drugs and prostitution legal. Once legal, they would required the
drug pusher/pimp and prostitute to register with them and get an HST tax
number so that in essence they are passing on the actual tax payable to
the end user. They would of course have to declare income and pay income
taxes on whatever they declare....pipe dream?...of course!
Most transactions are on a cash basis in this underground economy.
I'm sure there are millions, possible hundreds of millions exchanged for drugs
and sex for hire that the gov't can't capitalize on it..because of the legality
issue.

Now in Holland, the gov't legalized prostitution in certain sectors of their cities
(ie" Amsterdam Red Light District). The purveyors of services, are registered
for tax purposes and can give you a receipt (if required) and can take credit
cards. 

Read an article that a certain star soccer player (D.B.)who is married to an ex-Spice girl (V.B)actually hired a expensive lady of the night for $10,000. 

Imagine if this was in Ontario and it was legal..the HST that Dalton could have collected ...$1300! ..or the divorce lawyer's bill HST?..thousands!


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Banning lotteries and gambling doesn't work--it just drives it underground. So, I'm not saying we should ban these. I just don't think the government should be marketing these so hard.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

andrewf said:


> Banning lotteries and gambling doesn't work--it just drives it underground. So, I'm not saying we should ban these. I just don't think the government should be marketing these so hard.


A lot of gambling these days is underground. "Speak easy" poker games, illegal
bookies for horse races....It's been there for years and
so have lotteries sponsored by gov'ts or charity organizations. Charities.
as long as they are registered with CRA and have a lottery licence, can
raise funds for many purposes, so definitely you don't want the hospitals
for instance to suffer when they run their own "Cash/cars/house" lotteries.
That is a very good way to raise money for expansions or major projects
that are not funded by the provincial gov't. 

Cancer research lotteries are another. Some are even so bold in their advertising as stating "1 in 3 chances of winning"...winning what?..
certainly not a major prize..so in some ways
that is misleading advertising..but when you are marketing a dream..
I guess you can get away with it without being singled out by the authorities. 

Marketing is the key to selling lotteries and the various scratch n' win schemes that are out there, and these days there are plenty.
Now inspite of the 99.999% of lottery participants that are losers, there
are winners..there has to be..so the cycle continues.


----------

