# BC cuts income tax 15%



## Jungle (Feb 17, 2010)

*BC cuts income tax 15% *now suspended**

For the first $72K, read here.

What do you think? HST relief?


----------



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

Or he could have simply abolished his earlier tax increase ("the HST") that a resulted in a significant tax increase for consumers. This politician is clearly out of touch with what average people want. The gov't likes the HST because it's good for them. All that other stuff about job creation and strengthening the economy is empty rhetoric and lies, nothing more.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

the-royal-mail said:


> Or he could have simply abolished his earlier tax increase ("the HST") that a resulted in a significant tax increase for consumers. This politician is clearly out of touch with what average people want. The gov't likes the HST because it's good for them. All that other stuff about job creation and strengthening the economy is empty rhetoric and lies, nothing more.


Exactly the same here in Ontario.
The con artist named Dalton McGuinty did this to keep his "gravy train" going.
I can't wait for October 2011 when I can use my vote to kick that clown out of office.


----------



## slacker (Mar 8, 2010)

I'm actually ok with the HST because it's a better efficient tax than GST/PST. But I'm still mad about the Health Premium. That's a WAY bigger tax increase than HST, and it's a (more) regressive tax than the HST. (the richer you are, the less you pay as a % of income)


----------



## Belizean Beach Bum (Apr 19, 2009)

Dear Gordo:

Thank you for the reduction in our taxes. It will look good on our pension cheques. This is almost as good as that time you gave me the one year buy out to help you downsize the public service.

If you send us a couple of return tickets at election time, we'll come up and vote for you.

Regards,

Belizean Beach Bums


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Has to be said: HST is and was good policy. It had nothing to do with a 'cash grab' on the part of the provinces. Both BC and Ontario have reduced other taxes by more than the increase in HST. HST is just highly visible.


----------



## Jon202 (Apr 14, 2009)

Visibility and Optics.. that's all it is.

How often do you think the average working looks at his pay stub and calculates the deductions?

Now, do you think it's more OR less often than as he would check the receipt when he buys something and sees the HST?

I'd rather take more home and control my spending, then have the Gov't tax my income & investments.


----------



## CanadianCapitalist (Mar 31, 2009)

Jon202 said:


> Visibility and Optics.. that's all it is.
> 
> How often do you think the average working looks at his pay stub and calculates the deductions?
> 
> ...


I think the HST is good tax policy as well. It's true that HST impacts low income Canadians more but transfer payments were boosted to address this impact. We didn't get much of an income tax break but with Ontario swimming in deficits, I don't expect one whatever stripe of Government.

The Health Tax still riles me. I would have been less mad if it was a % of income but no, McGuinty had it top out at $80K or so.


----------



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

andrewf said:


> Has to be said: HST is and was good policy. It had nothing to do with a 'cash grab' on the part of the provinces. Both BC and Ontario have reduced other taxes by more than the increase in HST. HST is just highly visible.


Nice to see you are enjoying the koolaid. Let me know when your're sober. 

The HST is nothing more than a tax grab. It has nothing to do with efficiencies and everything to do with increasing taxes. You are being lied to, something McGuinty has been very good at since his broken 2003 election promise about not raising taxes, then introducing the "health care premium" (which doesn't appear as a separate line item on pay stubs). They did that because it brings them more revenue. PERIOD. To think otherwise shows you don't understand politicians.

Campbell is paying a huge political price for his bloody HST. No politician would pay such a political price merely for something which is "efficient" and doesn't give them another dime.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

the-royal-mail said:


> Campbell is paying a huge political price for his bloody HST. No politician would pay such a political price merely for something which is "efficient" and doesn't give them another dime.


A big problem for Campbell is that it is neutral overall but shifts the tax burden from businesses to consumers. That is what is hard to sell.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I don't know what to say, RM. The corporate and personal income tax reductions more than outweigh to the additional revenue the HST brings in vs the old PST. Them's the facts. McGuinty is doing a bad job grabbing cash if he's cutting taxes more than he's raising them.

I can't say I like paying HST, but I also got a $300 direct tax cut in January. That more than pays for the HST that applies to things I purchase where PST didn't apply. But then, I don't lead a very consumptive lifestyle. The company I work for is also getting a big tax cut, which is good for me as an employee and shareholder.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

I'm with TRM - HST (at least the McGuinty version) is nothing more than a tax grab.
There are many things wrong with it.
I'm totally for a single, harmonized tax....totally makes sense.
What I'm not ok with is increasing the tax burden for households under this guise.
They should have implemented the HST and reduced the overall rate to 10% or so.
And they can keep the $300 they mailed to everybody....

The whole thing about creating jobs with the extra tab money is all hogwash.
Actually, no, they are indeed creating "jobs" - for themselves.
Giving themselves bigger raises, hiring more public sector workers, larger expense accounts, digging holes and filling them up, giving bailouts, and so on.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> I'm with TRM - HST (at least the McGuinty version) is nothing more than a tax grab.
> There are many things wrong with it.
> I'm totally for a single, harmonized tax....totally makes sense.
> What I'm not ok with is increasing the tax burden for households under this guise.
> ...


They also lowered your income tax. If you make more than the threshold for the second tax bracket you got a ~300$ tax cut per year, per head. That goes a long way to offsetting the tax change for middle-class families. Consider that the change added 8% tax to about 20% of the typical basket of goods that consumers buy (and the rest of the basket was unchanged). That means that $600 income tax cuts breaks even for families with $600/(8%X20%)= $37,500 in consumption. 

That doesn't count any tax savings passed through to consumers (which I'm guessing you don't believe will happen, despite evidence to the contrary) through lower prices.


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

My reading is that the title of this thread is wrong. It should read "BC cuts income tax _RATE _ by 15%. Big difference.


----------



## osc (Oct 17, 2009)

The (BC) liberal government has been a very good thing for BC's economy. Compare the last 8 years with the disaster that was the '90s. What's surprising to me is that the party that governed in the '90s is still around and will probably be back to power in 2013. That will probably have a negative impact on economy and may trigger the long anticipated housing bubble burst.
The few hundreds gained with this tax cut or the few hundreds lost with HST have basically zero impact on me.


----------



## K-133 (Apr 30, 2010)

Tax cuts, in times like this should be very welcome. As a political tool, should help calm the cannabis inspired upheaval out West.

I suspect that there are a lot of people who really don't understand the HST or its impacts. And those that claim they do, really haven't taken the time to do the Math. They should consult an accountant to set their heads straight. Then again, I suspect these sterotypes also have lawn signs stating "This land is our land. Back off Government.".

There was an article published this week (Ottawa Citizen online?) stating that most Ontarians think that HST applies to home resales. People really are out to lunch and should better inform themselves.

Needless to say, its here now folks, nobody will be able to say anything tangible about it for another few years. After that, if you find out that it is more taxing (harhar pun intended) on your economy, than I'll listen. Right now, you're simply losing credibility.


----------



## Robillard (Apr 11, 2009)

In general, I think the HST is good policy; however, many businesses in BC implemented it very poorly. Many that I've seen raised their prices and didn't factor in their expected HST input rebates. While I'm annoyed that the BC government didn't keep its promises, or sell the change in tax to the public better, I'm more annoyed with business owners who used the situation as an excuse for a price increase.


----------



## Jungle (Feb 17, 2010)

Now suspended  

Carrot on a stick or what?


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Jungle said:


> Now suspended
> 
> Carrot on a stick or what?


They can't figure out whether they are coming or going.
Ontario had that too, first with the eco-fee and now with the hydro rates.
I guess they are trying to find a balance between screwing people for more taxes vs. chances of getting re-elected.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Let's play a game: compare taxes in BC pre- and post-Gordon Campbell. He's been a spectacular failure at raising taxes.


----------



## jamesbe (May 8, 2010)

Only part of the HST that kills me is on essential items like electricity and gas for home heating (propane/natural gas etc). That hurts low income families the most and there isn't a thing they can do about it.

My heat is 18 this winter...


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Low income families are getting increased GST/HST rebates as part of the implementation. They can choose how to use that money. If we're concerned about the poor, let's increase the rebate. Giving rich people cheap natgas isn't the answer.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Campbell is just trying to solidify his legacy as the most hated politician in history. After Glenn Clark, that is a tough goal to achieve.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Worse than Lyin Brian...........or Mikey Harris....? Wow, that is bad.


----------



## PoorPablo83 (Feb 8, 2010)

I think most BC'ers aren't really that opposed to the HST, but more the lie that brought about the tax. Cambell promised during his campaign that there would be no HST, it wasn't on the table etc etc... then a month after getting re-elected he announces the HST. Come on... the public will put up with a lot, but this was definitely the straw that broke the Cambell's back. (Sorry, had to throw that in there...)

Now it's existence will be up to a referendum coming up in the fall of 2011. Recently the wording of the question was announced by elections BC to be something like "Do you believe the HST is a good idea", as opposed to something like "Do you believe the HST was properly implemented" or something along those lines. The Liberals are banking on a) people getting used to paying the tax by holding an election a full year after we signed all those petetions, b) playing off the practicality of the tax as opposed to focusing on the horrible way it was rolled out and c) having no one to focus their anger on as Cambell will long gone by that time.

As for this thread, I love the way the Liberals tried to bribe us with our own money, then pulled the carrot back when polls showed the idea didn't fly the way they hoped it would. I am not old enough to know from experience what living under an NDP provincial government is like, but I'm really starting to wonder if it can be all the bad?


----------



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

How is that any different from what McGuinty did in 2003? "I won't raise your taxes but I won't lower them either".

Then promptly introduced a "health care premium".

Then all the ministers gave themselves a 28% pay increase.

Then raised fees at the MTO.

Then raised hydro rates.

Then introduced the HST.

Ontario is politically the most stupid province in the country for voting for clowns like this. At least in BC the people fought back.


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

The reason that Campbell had to spring it on us so quickly after the election without consultation was the feds slapped on a major financial incentive (>$1B) if we adopted the HST, but put a time window on it. There would have been no time for a reasoned dialog with the populace, so he weighed the alternatives.... a billion plus to reduce the deficit vs annoying the taxpayers with a surprise HST. Major miscalculation. However, the HST is still the better option.


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

Better option or not a disgusting lie is a disgusting lie, so I guess it is time to bring on the conservatives in BC.

Poorpablo83 notice I said conservative and didn't say NDP. NDP is a disaster, they have nice ideas but never have a solution to pay for them. So what you will get is mining leaving the province, taxes going up, red tape galore, deficit going up and government spending increasing.


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

I actually believe them.... The HST had been a long running discussion in all the provincial finance departments for over a decade. The feds were continually trying to encourage them to get on board. It was only when the feds sprung the big >$1B+ inducement (after the election) with the time limit on it, they decided to go ahead with the HST. I personally don't think they lied. (I think I am the only one in BC who believes this, however)


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I doubt it was their sinister plan to spring an HST implementation on BC while saying they wouldn't. It's rather inelegant. I think it's more likely that they changed their mind. HST is good policy, so they should be forgiven for changing their mind, I would think.


----------



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

andrewf said:


> HST is good policy..


Whatever. Just because you keep repeating it, doesn't make it so.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Well, I think a single, unified tax is desirable.
Makes it simple for everyone.
However, what is not ok is to increase overall taxes under that excuse _and_ mislead people about it.
Increasing taxes while giving millions in bailouts to big businesses that did bad, stupid things is not ok.
Giving themselves (politicians, public sectors workers, unionized workers) big fat pay raises and bonuses at such times is not ok.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

the-royal-mail said:


> Whatever. Just because you keep repeating it, doesn't make it so.


Correct enough. 

Ask just about any economist. Yes yes, I'm sure you have a better grasp of the macroeconomic effects of tax policy than the majority of economists. I know that this is the appeal to authority fallacy, but you don't seem to be interested in listening to the empirical analysis. It's all just an evil socialist plot...


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> Well, I think a single, unified tax is desirable.
> Makes it simple for everyone.
> However, what is not ok is to increase overall taxes under that excuse _and_ mislead people about it.
> Increasing taxes while giving millions in bailouts to big businesses that did bad, stupid things is not ok.
> Giving themselves (politicians, public sectors workers, unionized workers) big fat pay raises and bonuses at such times is not ok.


Good thing they didn't raise overall taxes. They cut personal and corporate income taxes, increased the GST rebate for low-income earners and eliminated capital taxes, all at a net cost to the treasury (ie, net tax reduction).


----------



## slacker (Mar 8, 2010)

the-royal-mail said:


> Whatever. Just because you keep repeating it, doesn't make it so.


HST is good policy.


----------



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

slacker said:


> HST is good policy.


Hundreds of thousands of people in BC disagree with you.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

The corollary to your earlier point is that repeating the fact that the HST is bad also doesn't make it true.

More people believe Elvis is still alive than believe that the HST is bad for British Columbians. They're both just delusions/misconceptions. There are plenty of public policy instruments that are not intuitive. Would you rather your doctor be trusting his gut or empirical examination of the facts in treating you? Does the fact that many people think homeopathic remedies are great diminish the fact that they are utterly ineffective (except as placebos)?


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

andrewf said:


> The corollary to your earlier point is that repeating the fact that the HST is bad also doesn't make it true.


The political dilemnas of the BC and ONT premiers was discussed this evening at CTV's PowerPlay show.
The fact remains that barring a small % of people, almost everyone thinks both provincial govt. have done a very bad job this term.
Voters' opinion is a very powerful thing.
A public official may ignore voters at his/her own peril.
Think what happened in the city of Toronto municipal elections last month.
Public anger is very powerful, and it is rising.


----------



## Karen (Jul 24, 2010)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by slacker
> HST is good policy.
> 
> Hundreds of thousands of people in BC disagree with you.


I can't help but wonder how many of those hundreds of thousands of people who say they disagree with the HST (and who signed the petition) have the slightest idea of what the HST is all about! Not many, I'll bet!

I have very little respect for people who will sign a petition opposing some policy when they don't really understand what it is they're opposing.


----------



## Karen (Jul 24, 2010)

steve41 said:


> I actually believe them.... The HST had been a long running discussion in all the provincial finance departments for over a decade. The feds were continually trying to encourage them to get on board. It was only when the feds sprung the big >$1B+ inducement (after the election) with the time limit on it, they decided to go ahead with the HST. I personally don't think they lied. (I think I am the only one in BC who believes this, however)


Add me to your list of one, Steve. I thought I was the only one in BC who believes it.

I also want to correct a myth that has come to be believed by most people. No member of the Liberal government denied that they were going to bring in the HST during the election campaign. Neither the premier nor the finance minister was ever asked about it during the campaign, thus they did not lie about it; it was a non-elected member of the Liberal party who was asked and made the denial, and he was not authorized to speak for the premier or any cabinet member. But when it comes to politics, don't confuse the public with facts; they would rather believe what they want to believe.


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

Come on Karen, you must be smoking something to believe they didn't lie. They are in government and in charge so they have to know what they are going to do or they are even worse then we have thought. They have been in government for a long time so they figured they could do whatever they wanted without debate. So what kind of respect do you deserve when you will support a government no matter what they did.

Also look at the idiotic carbon tax that goes to nothing when we buy gas at the pump. This government gave us that and then cut the grants you get when you buy a furnace and insulate your house or whatever. Shouldn't that carbon fraud tax go to something like that. I am also not happy about the sale of BC rail and the willingness of the government to wanting to sell BC hydro to the US.

The HST may be a better thing for us in BC but I don't need it jammed down my throat.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

dogcom said:


> Shouldn't that carbon fraud tax go to something like that.


Earmarking taxes generally doesn't make sense, much less a difference. Money is fungible, so just pretend that whatever the carbon tax collects is spent on your favourite government program.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

I am a firm supporter of sales taxes. Here is Mexico it is called IVA and you cannot avoid it. Everyoine has their tax dodges and shelters but sales tax is unavoidable except through fraud, and those fraudsters will get their comeuppance eventually.


----------



## slacker (Mar 8, 2010)

@kcowan: 

1. One can easily dodge sales tax via the black market.

2. Sales tax unfairly targets the poor. Lower income folks spend a large % of their income on non-discretionary consumption (food, and other necessities). Whereas a relatively higher income individual (yours truely), spends a relatively small % of income on non-discretionary consumption.

Hey, shifting from income tax to consumption tax works out well for me, but I'm not a selfish jerk.


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

Andrewf said "Earmarking taxes generally doesn't make sense, much less a difference. Money is fungible, so just pretend that whatever the carbon tax collects is spent on your favourite government program."

I couldn't disagree more and this is why government isn't accountable and voters accept much less from government. 

I think a tax should go away or must be renamed if it gets used for anything else then it was set up for. The carbon tax should end now because it doesn't go to where it should. A good example of money going where it should is a bottle deposit that seems to work.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

dogcom said:


> I think a tax should go away or must be renamed if it gets used for anything else then it was set up for. The carbon tax should end now because it doesn't go to where it should.


Perhaps a bit off-topic, but I found it ironical that amongst the "austerity measures" being considered by Ireland is a carbon tax.
Businesses will, without doubt, pass through this cost/tax to the consumers and it will simply end up becoming just another tax that goes towards funding an irresponsible govt.
A lot of these terms are simply euphemisms for taxes.
The more irresponsible the govt is, the more desperate their situation is, the more creative these taxes get.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

slacker said:


> @kcowan:
> 
> 1. One can easily dodge sales tax via the black market.
> 
> ...


Then the answer is to give money to poor people. Hey, we do that already. It's called the GST rebate. Is it insufficient? Then let's increase it! Great idea!


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

dogcom said:


> Andrewf said "Earmarking taxes generally doesn't make sense, much less a difference. Money is fungible, so just pretend that whatever the carbon tax collects is spent on your favourite government program."
> 
> I couldn't disagree more and this is why government isn't accountable and voters accept much less from government.
> 
> I think a tax should go away or must be renamed if it gets used for anything else then it was set up for. The carbon tax should end now because it doesn't go to where it should. A good example of money going where it should is a bottle deposit that seems to work.


The carbon tax was a tax shift. The proceeds of the tax don't need to be frittered away on windmills. The tax itself has the environmental effect. The proceeds were used to reduce other taxes, including personal and corporate taxes in BC.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> Perhaps a bit off-topic, but I found it ironical that amongst the "austerity measures" being considered by Ireland is a carbon tax.
> Businesses will, without doubt, pass through this cost/tax to the consumers and it will simply end up becoming just another tax that goes towards funding an irresponsible govt.
> A lot of these terms are simply euphemisms for taxes.
> The more irresponsible the govt is, the more desperate their situation is, the more creative these taxes get.


Ireland is looking at a carbon tax because carbon taxes are very economically efficient for the revenue they raise. Ireland has a pretty solid tax regime, and their consideration of a carbon tax only confirms their sound policy. Too bad they let their banks blow their brains out.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

slacker said:


> @kcowan:
> 
> 1. One can easily dodge sales tax via the black market.


Not without sacrificing the benefits of CPP and EI



> 2. Sales tax unfairly targets the poor. Lower income folks spend a large % of their income on non-discretionary consumption (food, and other necessities). Whereas a relatively higher income individual (yours truely), spends a relatively small % of income on non-discretionary consumption.
> 
> Hey, shifting from income tax to consumption tax works out well for me, but I'm not a selfish jerk.


What kind are you?

I pay full income tax in BC and then sales taxes in BC and Mexico. The sales tax on a yacht in BC goes a long way to pay for GST rebates for the poor. Same with the HST on a newly-constructed mansion.

If you go through a year of no income tax, you will experience the benefit of all the social programs for the poor. They are extensive.


----------



## OthetJibtib (Nov 25, 2010)

*BC cuts income tax 15*

Yes. By definition a partnership, whether an LLC, LLP, or regular partnership, is nothing more than two or more sole proprietorships put together for taxation purposes. As such, any income from the partnership is subject to both income and payroll tax. Any losses from the partnership can reduce income at the personal level, if there is a basis for the deductibility of the loss.


----------



## Pigzfly (Dec 2, 2010)

1) The carbon tax in BC is designed to be revenue-neutral; the increases in this tax were offset by reductions elsewhere (I am absolutely amazed that it made it into law!)

2) I REALLY hope that the HST in BC is not shot down due to a political bungle. It is much more efficient and much needed in many sectors. 
TRM, the math backs this statement up. 
For a more concrete example - I received a summer bonus, due to higher than expected revenues, which were in part due to the decreased costs thanks to HST credits for my employer. I am poor, so I have a high propensity to consume, so that money was spent, thereby increasing the velocity of money and the balance sheet of other companies and employees. 

3) The "No" campaign for HST is allowed to have a massive budget. The "yes" campaign is limited to something pathetic and useless, I think like 40 or 50K? What are the chances that the real story will propagate given the 1 to more than 10 advertising/publicity funding ratio?
In my town, the people who organized the "no" campaign and petition are staunch left wing (NDP) supporters, who are always campaigning for more government programs with magic dollars, and they earn rather modest incomes and pay very little income tax. Coincidence? I think not. Money doesn't grow on trees folks, otherwise I would be a much better arborist.


----------

