2. Too blunt an instrument

The author states the HST is "an across the board" tax. But it isn't, because business pays no tax. It is therefore selective, and I do not believe governments of any stripe should enjoy that kind of arbitrary decision-making.

There are many more reasons

With Crankypants number 5 reason, that's just the beginning. Lies, lies and more lies in the pro HST ads and our so called impartial government pumping the HST. For these two additional reasons, the HST should be defeated.

one more reason

Another reason to axe this tax is to show 'OUR elected representatives' that we will change things we don't like.

After we do axe this tax then WE can decide if Enbridge can build 'their' pipeline across our province.

WE will decide whether there will be a BC Rail inquiry or not.

We will decide whether to allow Foreign Fish Farms to continue poisoning our wild salmon and polluting our waters.

WE will decide if BC Hydro should be forced to pay exorbitant rates for so called private power.

WE will decide if Forest companies can ship our raw logs and mill jobs to China.

WE will decide if Super tankers can sail on our north coast.

WE will decide if fracking for natural gas will be permitted in our province.

WE will decide if we should be selling off our natural resources to foreign interests without preserving them for our own use.

WE will decide if we want our province to exist for us or for foreign developers and multinational corporations.

WE will decide.

WE will decide. === I wish

WE will decide.
===

I wish that were true. We should have a referendum on all those points you brought up.

I also do not trust these mail in ballots either. But I still have not received my hst one (along with others I know) so I guess not everyone gets to participate in this vote. I never missed any election in 25 year...this will be my first I guess...:(

Well put

Well put Ron Wilson, this is something whose time has come

Referenda

People are right to want to extend the populist victory on BC's HST to other issues. The elimination of this possibility was always one of the top items on the Corporatist's secret agenda. NO country with a VAT has ever allowed its voters to decide on this evil tax.
The most powerful weapon in the elite's armory has been the idea that "you can't do anything about it". Well, the HST signature drive & referendum will eliminate that lie. The rich & powerful hate democracy - it's the one area that their overwhelming wealth can't guarantee them privileges for ever.

Won't be the same as before

Just don't be suprised when we go back to PST that none of the former tax exemptions exist and that they maybe even raise it a point. PST on restaurant meals and labor will stay as it is undr HST. To pay for the reversal expect PST to go to 8% so in 2012 we will be paying 13% PST/GST vs 10% HST. Going to happen folks as this vote is a farce. Of course people are going to vote to get rid of it. Just cause they can.

Re: won't be the same......

One would hope that the current government doesn't ignore the will of the people and remove the exemptions of the previous tax system, since that would most likely guarantee their removal in the next election. Falcon and Clark would be saying goodbye to their jobs if they again show utter contempt for the people, but in this province, who knows?

They all ran away

Remember when the bank tax was brought in? Did not the big eastern banks all close up shop and run back to Ontario? As long as there are profits to be made, business's will stay, no matter what their tax is. Lets not kill the golden goose but as a just society we should be able pluck a feather or two for ourselves.

Comprehensive tax review required

We do need to vote YES to get rid of this HST boondoggle but business as usual will not prevail. Instead of fix-it's, tax grabs and all the various ways the govt tries to get our money, we need a change of govt and a comprehensive tax review.

Anyone who did not get a ballot

or was unable to get through to Elections BC to register and/or order a ballot should do two things.

They should go to VoteYESBC's website. In the next day or two they will be putting in a field where you can register your complaint about not receiving a ballot or being unable to get through to EBC. If the HST referendum goes to the NO side, it will be excellent ammunition against EBC and the Lieberals. Especially considering there is not a lot of confidence in the mail-in ballot system already as there are no observers present at the warehouse where the ballots are received and the first validation step is performed.

They should also email their complaint to EBC at

and cc it to both Christy Clark at

and Adrian Dix at

. That way their complaint will be noted and will not disappear into thin air.

One would hope...

"One would hope that the current government doesn't ignore the will of the people..."

You are dreaming, my friend. The BC Liberals neither know nor care what "the will of the people" is.

sunnyokanagan

There is still room to be hopeful, even though this bunch is definitely a group of opportunistic thugs. One thing they don't want is to be voted out of government, and that in my view would guarantee it.

This whole HST business has again shown that this government has no morals or sense of fair play. They did not have the mandate to do what they did, along with having a clear contempt for the electorate, but that doesn't seem to matter to a lot of people. A sad commentary on the intelligence of the electorate.

Proportional Representation

If WE, the people, want the government to do what WE want them to do, why did WE vote down proportional representation (BC-STV), which would have made our elected officials a lot more responsive to the wishes of US, their constituents?

The problem with our current government is, quite simple

The Campbell years (and undoubtedly the Ms Christy years) have been (and will be) one long and repeated series of actions that - in sharp contrast to what Campbell promised in 2001 - have been opaque, lacking in consultation and cooperation, often unaccountable, frequently illegal - or at the very least unconstitutional, almost never debated thoroughly in a legislature which seldom sits and, in many respects in strong contrast with both public opinion AND the actual promises and undertakings of BC Liberal policy and promises. Not to mention the fact that these actions have been taken, in many cases, for the pure and unadulterated benefit of business and corporate interests while being diametrically opposed to the economic, health, educational and welfare interests and concerns of the poor, the disabled, the old, the infirm and the middle class.

That things have come to such a pass where ordinary citizens are now availing themselves of the legal powers to object to this kind of 'government' is hardly a surprise.

Unlike the California situation - where a very small clique of extremely wealthy individuals finessed the 'system' to their own advantage - the big change in democracy here in BC is the result of a largely unfunded volunteer action marshaled by the actual citizens who've seen the consequences of undemocratic top-down 'leadership' at its worst.

There is no comparison.

Take an economics course people!

I get quite frustrated when I read some of these comments. Do people no understand that business does not pay tax. It is passed on to the consumers of the product, usually after a markup. If a business is exporting their product and the tax component of its costs raise the price too much, the consumer buys elsewhere. Some of the people commenting here seem to think that if the HST is repealed, they will pay less for products yet still keep the same services. This tax has little effect on low income earners, since it does not apply to most basic neccessities and has an income based rebate. If you eat out a lot or spend a lot of money on hair cuts and other services that are luxuries, you pay more. Heaven forbid that the wealthy are required to pay a bit of tax. A much more efficient use of energy would be to spend time and effort to ensure that all tax money is spent wisely and rid the province of the liberal government. They are incompetent and have a history of favouring their friends with your money. [OFFENSIVE COMMENTS REMOVED.]

Logical_thought..

Business DOES pay tax - but, for incorporated businesses - only on their profits...

As for the differences between the GST/PST and the HST, I can't believe you're ignorant of the fact that the HST applies to a much bigger basket of goods and SERVICES than the PST/GST did...this tax has a huge effect on low income earners because on each identical basket of services purchased by a low income earner the impact of the HST (expressed as a percentage of income) is LARGER for the lower income individual.

It doesn't matter what basket of services and goods you select, if that basket costs $10,000 a year and is taxed at 12% the total outlay for tax is exactly the same - .12 x 10,000.

On the same basket of goods and services (doesn’t matter what they are) the taxpayer who makes 40G per annum pays a higher percentage of his income than does a taxpayer who makes 80G per annum.

That's why sales taxes aimed at consumers are regressive - the GST/PST is only less harmful than the HST because the HST impinges on a much larger range of goods and services.

That's why it is regressive and that's why it should be rejected - not just because it was imposed in a deceptive and dishonest way (although that's also true) but because it is both a shift of taxes onto consumers from business and because the shift hits less-well-off people more than it does wealthy people.

A few errors

1. No, it wasn't revenue neutral. But neither is a 2 per cent tax cut by 2014. That's revenue-losing for the province, and I think a reasonable compensation for the temporary increased costs to consumers.

2. Broad-based consumption taxes that don't discriminate based on industry is the fairest method of taxation according to an economist. You're reacting to the loss of a tax system that was created decades ago when B.C. was a goods-producing province and not a services-based one as it is now.

But nor does your argument compel me to believe taxes can't be flexible and exemptions made. They can and do. Look it up.

3. Increasing corporate taxes or delaying cutting small business taxes was necessary precisely because of the kind of hyperbolic overreaction to the effects of the HST in the first place, which have been marginal and minimal.

GWest - Please explain

You state above:
"Business DOES pay tax - but, for incorporated businesses - only on their profits..."

Are you saying that unincorporated businesses pay tax on more than their profits? If so I'd be interested in knowing what this calculation looks like. It appears that you are suggesting that if, using the same accounting standards, an incorporated business and an unincorporated business both have net earnings before income taxes of $100k the later pays taxes on an amount greater than $100k.

More errors....

So why is it that I pay more HST on a months worth of purchases than I ever paid with PDT and some GST. I know it is costing me more and prices have increased.
Every time this discussion comes up we see the same arguments by the pro HST side and they never address the reality.

Strongly agree

Thank you for writing this. The previous articles in the Tyee on this subject, written by Prof. Pendakur, made me want to barf. I was particularly disturbed by the professor's argument that the HST is bad because if corporations' "...costs are higher, then they'll charge higher prices to consumers". This implies corporations should pay no tax at all. It's rhetoric that's regularly used by the right. One big problem that's unique to the left is that we're constantly being infiltrated by supposed lefties who try to convince us of their right wing ideas/agendas. Wolves in sheeps clothing.

Who's counting the ballots?

I sent my yes vote in some weeks ago. I have been wondering who receives these ballots, and how safe they are in that person's hands.

If there isn't an ironclad oversight by impartial parties, or parties of both views, how do we know our mail in ballots have not gone up in smoke by now? Or been "accidentally lost"?

No John Corman -

I'm simply stating the obvious - that unincorporated businesses have a lot more opportunity to overstate expenses (and understate returns) than incorporated business does.
Let's look at, for example, a sole proprietor - for the purposes of our example someone who runs a restaurant or a small corner grocery.
I think you can use your imagination to figure out pretty quickly how the store owner or the restaurateur might be able to use expensed product from their business to, for example, feed their family AND reduce their expenses when determining the bottom line each year.
It's a little more difficult for an incorporated business (other than a closely held family entity) to fool the taxman and get away with it.
Where there are widely held shares and competing ownership interests management is usually a little more careful about trying to screw the level of their profits (and therefore the applicable tax) down to nothing each year.
Not that they don't try often enough.
That's why it was useful - under the old PST/HST rules - to actually have some portion of the PST revenues coming from business (approximately 40%) rather than the current situation where business pays sweet bugger all and consumers pay the whole fucking bill.
I would have thought it was obvious.

Time's up, this debate is nearly over

I and most of my friends and acquaintances have sent in their ballots. Of those, after considerable debate, most chose YES.

I hope that B.C. citizens took the time to really evaluate both sides politically, economically and ethically, as well as taking the trouble to then send in their ballots.

Now we wait to see the results. Hope they are honestly counted.

But the discussion about progressive and regressive taxes needs to continue, as does who is best to govern after the next election.

If the commenters here represented the province, then I know who it would be.

Too bad that's not the case, so we'll have to see when the time comes. My riding will likely vote B.C. Liberal/Socredl, as they have for a very long time.

HST and scammers?

This is faulty reasoning!

I operated a business in the Atlantic Provinces that became subject to GST and later to HST. Once I netted out my input tax credits, I had to pay on the value of the services I created. It's not a HST problem, it's the result of trusting that most of the business people in Canada are honest. If the writer was honest, we would know how much or how little the cheats were of the honest people.

GWest

You write, so eloquently;

"That's why it was useful - under the old PST/HST rules - to actually have some portion of the PST revenues coming from business (approximately 40%) rather than the current situation where business pays sweet bugger all and consumers pay the whole fucking bill.
I would have thought it was obvious."

Once again ignoring that if that sole proprietor decides to take his family out for a meal then he too, just like everyone else, will pay the HST on his bill, without any opportunity to recoup that tax. Same if any sole proprietor spends money on haircuts or golf-club memberships, lawn cutting service or Velvet Touch massages, they have to pay the HST on their costs and there is no rebate. So, it's not a question of the business owner paying as you charmingly say, "sweet bugger all" because they pay just like all of us and actually save sweet bugger all.

R/Man

The point simply is, for about the fifty-third time, that businesses - of all kinds - including sole proprietorships, had significant advantages over consumers and wage earners (not to mention the poor, the aged, the ill and the disabled) under the status quo ante.

Under the HST they now have even greater advantages and additionally now pay SWEET BUGGER ALL IN SALES TAX ON THEIR BUSINESS PURCHASES.

I'm surprised a man of your objectivity cannot understand such a basis concept.

This is just another bullshit transfer of costs from the corporate and business sector onto the only sector of this economy which actually serves to drive our economy.

You want to cripply the consumer sector further - well, so be it, have a good look at the situation south of the border if you think that's going to be such a good idea.

I'm sorry my friend, but you have, once again, completely lost the plot.

West

There are 400,000 small businesses in BC. Each and every owner of those businesses has to pay the tax on their junk food, soda-pop-to-go, golf club, fitness gym, steak dinner, etc., etc., just as the rest of us and they do.

That is the distinction I am making and it needs to be said. This concept that anyone who owns a business is getting a free ride is simply bull-shit but unfortunately quite common in this divide and conquer mentality [INFLAMMATORY COMMENTS DIRECTED AT ANOTHER COMMENTER REMOVED.]

Great cartoon, but...

Problems I find with your analysis:

Point 1 - HST will be raising too much money.
Point 3 - HST will not be raising enough money. Can you really argue both?

Point 2 - Blunt instrument argument. I don't really think individual tax exemptions are generally good public policy. For food to be consumed at home, okay. But for bicycles? Exemptions are subsidies - let's be honest and call them subsidies and subsidize.

Point 4 - Seems to me the HST system encourages compliance, since to get money back you have to have collected HST from customers. And less than $100 million in tax fraud out of $30 billion collected? That's a pretty good indication of tax compliance!

If we want good government, and I do, we have to pay for it! HST is about the best way one can design a value-added tax. I'm all for no sales taxes, just progressive income taxes, but do you think that would sell?

What are you talking about r/man?

Any product purchased for business purposes is a deductible expense for a businessman – whether it attracts sales tax or not - in the past if it was purchased for resale under the PST it was exempt. The only taxable items under the old system (that 40% of PST revenue which businesses used to pay to the exchequer) was for goods used in the business but not intended for resale.

Under the HST even THAT is now exempt...that's the bloody problem - just more socialism for Campbell and Missy Clark's business buddies...

When an owner of a business purchases items that attract the HST for PERSONAL USE they pay the tax AND, if they're a lower or middle income person OR if they're poor, disabled, old, a student or whatever they pay the same amount of Geezly tax as the rich son of a bitch does.

That's the fucking problem - if the rich guy and the poor guy buy the self-same package of consumer goods and services they pay the same bleedin' tax...but for the poor guy it amounts to a bigger proportion of his income than for the rich guy. In my dictionary, that’s the definition of unfair.

Therefore the stupid tax is REGRESSIVE - INEQUITABLE AND UNFAIR and it impinges more on people who can't afford it while lining the pockets of businesspeople who shouldn't be relying on the government to help make their stupidity profitable.

There's nothing desperate about telling the truth.

Take a Math course Mr West

If a rich guy and a poor guy COULD buy the same package of consumer goods, they would both be rich. The neccessities are not taxed by HST, not to mention that there are significant rebates to the poor. I don't know many poor people who get their hair cut, lawn mowed or eat out a lot. Better get a new dictionary with the proper definition of unfair. Earlier, you mentioned that businesses pay tax on profits. This has nothing to do with HST and you should understand that if nothing else. I have a small business, and if I have to pay PST on things the business consumes to operate, that charge gets passed down to my customers, usually marked up a bit to cover my administrative costs etc. Since the service I provide is not PST exempt, the service is taxed by PST, the PST I pay is included in my costs and is taxed again by PST, and the markup for my cost of collecting PST and paying PST is also taxed again. Only a moron could think this is a better system than a value added tax. I think that we could fine tune the system with regards to exemptions on some products, but that would not include making restaurant meals, haircuts or lawn mowing exempt. Energy saving products are of particular concern. On another related topic that is not included in your desperate definition of telling the truth, how do you expect to pay back the $1.6 billion transferred from the feds for instituting the HST? Maybe we can pay it using some of your creative math so that it does not cost us anything? I still think that we should be spending more time on looking at things like payment of legal fees for the convicted felons Basi and Virk, rather than things that have very little effect overall. [UNSUBSTANTIATED COMMENT REMOVED.]

Not really

If business can't make a profit AND pay some share of the sales tax revenue the government claims it needs to run the province then it shouldn't be in business.

Two identical packages of goods and services are bought and paid for by a rich man and a poor man - the rich man pays a tiny proportion of his income in tax and shrug it off - the poor man pays a much larger proportion on the same stuff.

Furthermore, prior to the HST the PST actually DID attempt to make some 'progressive' distinction between rich and poor - purchasers of automobiles costing over $55,000 paid an extra 2% in tax. Now they don't.

Now the government gets nothing at all from business and consumers (rich and poor alike) provide ALL THE SALES TAX REVENUE the province gets from the HST.

If you don't know poor people who get hair cuts, eat out a lot or have to get their cars fixed than you don't know many poor people.

Furthermore, I also know how difficult the past year has been for people in a wide range of businesses who now have to charge for services and goods which were previously zero rated or attracted only GST and were PST exempt.

I'd suggest you need to get out a little more and talk to a few car repairmen and women; a few small contractors and roofers AND, above all, a few people who - with family incomes of 40,000 to 50,000 dollars a year - are, given the cost of living in this province, “poor” and who (with their children and partners) need to seek tonsorial services at least a dozen times a year.

Just like the guy with the family income of $120,000.

Pick any package of goods and services a poor man buys and sell the same package to the rich guy - from a tax point of view, the rich guy is hardly treading water and the poor guy is going under.

There is only one form of tax which is progressive, equitable and fair - and that's the income tax. The PST + the GST was bad enough - but at least some of the revenue the PST collected came from business - under the HST NONE OF IT DOES.

You may LIKE that kind of a deal, I'm confident most British Columbians know a pig in a poke when they see one.

If you don't like my numbers - pick other ones - $3,000. or $5,000. The result is the same - the wealthier taxpayer is always going to pay a smaller percentage of his income in tax on any identical package of goods.

And neither of the taxpayers in the example gets ANY rebate at all - as both have incomes higher than the low income cut off.
I'm all in favour of getting the real goods on the BC Liberals sweetheart deal for BASI and VIRK's legal fees too - but you should note they aren't felons.

If you think the HST has very little impact overall, I think you need to do a lot more homework. And while you’re at it, have a look at payroll taxes – you’ll find they too hit low income earners a lot harder than wealthy folks too – how come?
Cheers.

Mr. Thought

Logic took you as far as it could - but not far enough. Look at some facts.

For instance, the film industry in BC is a big booster of the HST because it will mean lower production taxes for them - which will be entirely passed on to.... big production studios in Hollywood, New York and Toronto. Not one penny of the tax that used to be collected will ever find its way back to BC for use in social services. According to the BC Film Commission's stats, that is a net loss to BC of $70-110 million on a $1 billion bill. The studios make few, if any, decisions on where to shoot based on the tax regime of the location, but rather on a wide range of factors inclouding scenery, skill of the crews, equipment availability and many other things.

That is, however, BC's largest (and very nearly only) industry that qualifies for significant value-added credits.

In nearly all other cases, BC, which depends significantly on exports of raw materials suchg as ores, pulp and saw logs, and a few fish thrown in to boot, already pays nearly no PST on these exports, and certainly no compound tax. These exports go to other provinces and countries where, again, the consumer is someone else, not a BC resident, and who once again pays absolutely no tax back to our treasury. A $3 billion export industry that adds up to a tax loss estimated at between $240 miilion and $700 million, depending on whether you're talking to the Truck Loggers' boss Landry or the Construction Industry boss Hochstein.

All those lost taxes amounts to a subsidy to industry that has to be made up by taxpayers in this province, when we don't even get the benefit of the revenue or the goods from those sales.

Add to that Mr West's asseretion that the wider range of services that are now taxed, lays on us a pretty heavy tax bill that far exceeds what the productive part of our economy can support.

Honestly! There are much better ways to tax both people and corporations, and better reasons to apportion that tax burden differently too.

That's what makes your last non-sequitur so laughable. That $1.6 billion was never ours - either federally nor provincially. Both levels of government are running deficits this year - the feds $50 billion and Christy Clark $2 billion. Either way you slice it, someone is borrowing that $1.6 billion to give to us. More graphically, Harper put his hand in our left pockets to pick $1.6 billion out to put in our right pockets. I'm not sure why you fell for that old shell-game trick.

Realisticman

"There are 400,000 small businesses in BC. Each and every owner of those businesses has to pay the tax on their junk food, soda-pop-to-go, golf club, fitness gym, steak dinner, etc., etc., just as the rest of us and they do."

You're being facetious. You're speaking of the business owner as consumer, not as business operator. You're comparing the consumptive side of one industry to the productive side of another.

That makes as much sense as calling those same businessmen "socialists" because they send their goods out on publicly-paid-for roads, send their kids to publicly-paid-for schools and avail themselves of publicly-paid-for health care.

Of course, if that leads to your paying proper homage to the average wage-earner in society as the true pillar of wealth in our economy, I'll say anything you want me to.

Polly want a cracker!

And still...

...nobody has addressed my primary complaint - that HST punishes the truly poorest in our society. Nobody has even tried to come up with a mechanism to help them.

I'm talking, of course, about the more than 5000 homeless province-wide, those binners who don't have an address, and generally don't file tax returns, so they can't get HST refunds. But now they pay HST on absolutely everything they buy.

It would be cheap to cover their losses with an extra "homelessness" deduction, and get rid of my complaint. But absolutely nobody has tried to address it - not Christy (to whom I've written without reply) nor my MLA, the ever-useless Margaret MacDiarmid, nor any of you pro-HST boosters here.

And that tells me volumes about your sense of compassion, or lack thereof.

HST is Progressive.

There's a heavy-duty FOUL in the argument that makes the silly claim that the HST is a regressive tax. Take an example of two people, one earns $100,000 per year, the other earns just $40,000, and they both spend 15% of their net income on discretionary expenditures like restaurants, cinemas, clubs and other normal expenses. The higher earner will pay $1,050 in provincial tax annually (PST component of HST @ 12%) as opposed to $420 that the lower earner pays.

This simple example doesn't take into account the low-income rebates that are only paid out under the HST system.

Any pretense that VAT or HST is not progressive is simply playing with the truth.

One other important benefit of an VAT/HST system is that everyone pays it. If you go to Paris, London or Stockholm you pay it, even if you are a low-income-tax payer from the Bahamas or the Cayman Islands. If you come to Vancouver you pay it too. These wealthy travelers from low-income tax jurisdictions are far better off under the old system.

QED

Why has no one mentioned this?

I'm not at odds with an HST/GST style tax. My concern is the surrender of Provincial sovereignty. The Feds collect the tax and the province must go on bended knee to Ottawa and a Federal government that cares little how BC votes. We have so few seats in parliament, as to not make a big difference. Ontario and Quebec are the only jurisdictions the Feds need concern them selves with. This is a mistake to pay for an Olympic hangover.

I'm worried giving control over Provincial taxation, to the Feds, will surrender provincial sovereignty. The Canadian prime minister has dictatorial powers in this country. We do not have equal representation in Ottawa. The Government of the day need only concern them selves with Ontario and Quebec to win an election. Canada is rich currently and the Feds can afford to be benevolent. That will not always be the case.

dorse

Although the federal government administers the HST, the B.C. government still sets the basic parameters of the HST.

Until July 1, 2012, the HST rate can be changed if both the federal and provincial governments agree. After that, the province can change the tax rate once a year as it sees fit.

In addition, the province can also exempt goods and services from the HST as long as those exemptions are less than five per cent of HST revenue. This allows HST exemptions at the cash register for items such as motor fuel.
In addition, the province can deliver point-of-sale rebates that effectively exempt items from the HST. The provincial government now rebates HST on electricity and home heating fuel. That power to rebate can be used at the province’s discretion.

realisticman

Who holds the purse strings?

I finally read the rest of these posts

And democracy has no chance of survival in a rich country, I'm speaking specifically of comments from folks with nick names like realisticman and Logical_thought. Reminds me of the advertising on cheese cake when they call it low fat and light cheese cake. Do you think those sort of handles give your argument more credibility?

Zalm thanks for some realistic logical thought, backed by facts. Rafe sorry for playing with axiom #2

The problem with rich societies is, everyone has a six pack,a hockey game, and a water-ski boat and are to busy living the good life to even care, let alone know what their governments are doing.

dorse

Nothing in my post above is other than the facts. So, who's holding the purse strings? Your provincial government holds them on the provincial component of an HST and the federal government on the GST portion. Just as in all the other provinces. Like other provinces, the provincial government decides what to tax and the rate.

HST mail in ballot

After hearing a representative from Elections BC on CBC radio the other day I am questioning whether this so called independent public body is independent and able to be trusted with our ballots.

The spokesperson used a whining voice to portray citizens of BC who "failed" to request a ballot until the last day.

I would like to know how many of those who did not receive a ballot and were not able to request one signed the petition to squash the HST?

The person who spoke on behalf of Elections BC on CBC radio should be fired or at least transferred to a more appropriate government department like the Public Affairs Bureau.

Me thinks Election BC needs a purge. They believe elections belong to them and not the people of BC.

A mail-in ballot! What's next, disposable ballot boxes that mysteriously dissolve on their way to be counted?

Who will scrutinize the count? Who will have access to the "spoiled" ballots to determine the reasons for them to be not counted?

Remember YES means NO in BC. It goes against everything I taught my kids.

realisticman

Your arguments are more surrealistic than realistic. I have heard these arguments verbatim before under the guise of the "Smart Tax Alliance" a group made up of major corporations that have received more than a 40% tax break since Campbell and Co. and tax credits by the federal government.

These same corporations who have received the highest tax breaks in BC are lobbying the province to pass legislation to reduce or eliminate their municipal taxes.

Vote YES if you haven't already done so.

It's time for a Fair tax in BC.

My Solution

My solution is lets just tax all the foreigners living outside the country.
That democracy has no chance to survive in a rich country is a direct result of democracy being a greed based political system. Just look at the states. [UNSUBSTANTIATED COMMENT REMOVED.] There is little evidence of this here in most of the arguments. Many people still do not understand that taxing a business is the same as taxing individuals in the long run, other than it reduces the overall competitiveness of the business.

Well, we know that you get lots of hits

from the Victoria IP addresses, so here’s a message for them.

We know that you are receiving the returned ballots in a warehouse and going through the first validation step totally unobserved. NEVER in the history of Elections BC has the entire process not been observed by scrutineers, from beginning to end.

We also know that hundreds of people didn’t receive their ballots and/or were unable to get through to your phone number to register and/or order one.

We know that everywhere you go and everything you read shows the anti-HST sentiment running at least 75% to 25% and that voters opposed to the HST are much more motivated to return their ballots than those who support it (well, except for the STA and their friends).

We also know that the anti-HST sign war kicked the STA’s ass, even though they spent over 10 million dollars to our measly $250,000.

We all know that if the HST wins this referendum, and passes, that BC is thoroughly and completely corrupt.

The only thing we DON’T know is how the electorate will react. But I can tell you this Christy….Christy, can you hear me? That the electorate WILL NOT lie back and take this. We haven’t seen a provincial show of force by ordinary people since the 70′s, but if we catch you lying and cheating to win this – by God, you’ll see it this year!

Dreamer

desktraveler

Proportional Representation

If WE, the people, want the government to do what WE want them to do, why did WE vote down proportional representation (BC-STV), which would have made our elected officials a lot more responsive to the wishes of US, their constituents?
This would create rich ground for the bag-men indeed.

Dreamer

desktraveler

[Proportional Representation]

[If WE, the people, want the government to do what WE want them to do, why did WE vote down proportional representation (BC-STV), which would have made our elected officials a lot more responsive to the wishes of US, their constituents?]

This would create rich pickings for the bag-men indeed.

Logical_Thought

"Many people still do not understand that taxing a business is the same as taxing individuals in the long run"

You should have thought this out logically yourself before repeating something you heard and liked because on the surface you thought it made sense.

What you're assuming is that business people are endowed with special powers. Only they have the ability to charge higher prices to their customers and only they have the power to curtail their spending.

The fact is that they aren't special. Workers have the ability to charge higher prices for their labour, consumers have the ability to curtail their spending.

Therefore business can't pass on its taxes any more than non-business people do.

For example you say that you run a small business and when you're taxed more you charge higher prices. You think doing so has no effect??? Assuming you have an employee, what happens to him when you tax him more? Do you think he doesn't demand more pay or leave you for a new job or simply reduce his spending?

Believing that business doesn't pay taxes is a fairy tale that some have fallen for. Don't be one of them if you want us to assume from your handle that you put some thought into what you write. Because on this issue you didn't put enough.

pwg

I always thought that the initiative was brought forward by Ex-Premier Bill Vader Zalm and others that called for extinguishing the HST and going back to the combined GST & PST? I guess if you agree with that you should vote 'Yes'. I don't have a university education but I can understand this. Why is this difficult or too complicated for you?

Which fact or facts do you not understand in my comments?

Frank

Cute, but. You don't think that PST charged on a product that goes into a larger project in an advertising campaign or a film production, or a construction job, or a vehicle repair, is marked up on? You don't think that businesses can mark that up and pass that on? Tell me where this strange place is, because it's certainly not near here. Have you ever met an accountant?

realisticman

You don't think a person working for that company who just saw his after-tax income decreased will never ask for more money or curtail his spending?

Do you think perhaps he will continue to spend at the same rate in spite of his lowered income?

I'd like to meet this person, I assume he owes a lot of money?

Have you ever met a math text?

Frank - People pay taxes

You responded to Logical's comment:
"Many people still do not understand that taxing a business is the same as taxing individuals in the long run"
With:
"You should have thought this out logically yourself before repeating something you heard and liked because on the surface you thought it made sense".

This is the great divide between you people on the Left and us on the Right. That is that, to you, a corporation is a living breathing entity destined to rape and pillage and benefit from stealing from the populace. We see a corporation as a convenient vehicle for a group of people to achieve an economic goal. Not unlike your union, your yacht club and your charities.
So, anything that is paid or received by the corp/union is on behalf of the shareholders/members.

Suppose you want a new deck built. You ask a company for a quote. It comes in at $10k plus HST. You offer $8k cash and it is accepted. Who avoided paying the tax?

Simple Math

Frank:
"You don't think a person working for that company who just saw his after-tax income decreased will never ask for more money or curtail his spending?"

Frank, if he works for a company that now receives ITCs for expenses and that company now does not have to pay double for bookkeeping records for two tax collectors, then he may well get that raise that he's asking for because simple math tells us that his employer has more money to pay him.

Less expensive products being produced and less money spent on accountants. More money for workers! Thank you for enabling me to explain this simple premise.

Well put realisticman

I read recently a report of who was the primary beneficiary of corporate tax reductions. The employees. More for bonuses etc. while still keeping the shareholders happy.

People vs. Corporations

Arguments concerning how people are different from corporations might be missing something important. In law, corporations are people. If corporations have all the benefits of persons, then they should have the same responsibilities, including tax obligations. Corporations, as people, should pay the same taxes as everyone else. They are not somehow special, immune, or better than the rest of us. If i have to pay my taxes, I sure as hell want the *! corporations to pay theirs too.
NB: This isn't to say that I think corporations should be treated as people, only that they are.

r'man

"Frank, if he works for a company that now receives ITCs for expenses and that company now does not have to pay double for bookkeeping records for two tax collectors, then he may well get that raise that he's asking for because simple math tells us that his employer has more money to pay him"

Which is exactly what I said, thanks for saying it again.

"Less expensive products being produced and less money spent on accountants. More money for workers! Thank you for enabling me to explain this simple premise."

I'm glad your journey is completed and you are no longer confused.

Lojikul Thot

"Many people still do not understand that taxing a business is the same as taxing individuals in the long run..."

Not even close. A business providing personal services to business exeuctives, such as country clubs, corporate jets, and high-end restaurants, adds nothing at all to the production of goods and services in that businessman's corporation, yet now receives a tax exemption for doing so. I defy you to tell me where the logic of taxation is in this?

You know, it's pretty plain to see none of you have read economics. Galbraith made this abundantly clear in most of his books, but particularly The Affluent Society. Wealth is not created by businesses, but merely coordinated and assigned a monetary value that is, in most cases arbitrary, and not reflective of the cost of production.

But that's why we should be having a major conversation about this first, before we agree to vote on this, because there are a large number of serious economic errors floating about this conversation.

Corman

"I read recently a report of who was the primary beneficiary of corporate tax reductions. The employees. More for bonuses etc. while still keeping the shareholders happy."

Perhaps you could share your source of that report with us?

Public companies distribute 45-65% of profits to shareholders as dividends, keep from 0-35% as retained earnings and offer few clues as to how much is paid out in bonuses, except for NEOs (executive officers who are reporting entities for CSC purposes).

Private companies? Who knows. Nobody requires them to report, which is what makes your comment so whimsical.

And you're right, most NEOs are happy with their bonuses. Nobody I know is sure about the happiness states of the rest of the underlings, or whether they even get bonuses at all. Nobody was ever paid a bonus in the food industry corporation I worked for, which explains why they still have trouble attracting and retaining talent so many years later.

Galbraith

For anyone wishing to brush up on their economics you can now buy any of Galbraith's books for your Kobo or Kindie.

R'man

"You don't think that PST charged on a product that goes into a larger project in an advertising campaign or a film production, or a construction job, or a vehicle repair, is marked up on?"

Oh? You've never seen a business underbid its competitors below production cost simply to keep employees working and cash flow coming in while they wait for their big receivable to come in? You've never seen a business raise their price beyound the cost of production simply to make a little excess profit becasue they recognized a sucker was sitting across the other side of the table from them?

Yes, I'm sure you do live on a different planet. Let me assure you, these things happen all the time, right from GE and Honeywell down to the little fruit stand down the street from me that marks down its apples that are going soft to $0.29 a pound, way below the cost they paid for them, simply to get rid of them.

Economists all over acknowledge there are very, very few examples of perfect markets in our city, province or world, and even fewer offering perfect competition where buyers as well as sellers are perfectly informed. So any comment you may want to make regarding the relevance of production costs to profit needs to be seen through the lens of the real world.

Which, given your moniker, is something I shouldn't have to be telling you.

Go ahead. Find an economist who says that our markets for either exports or consumer goods operate in perfect competition. I defy you to find even one.

zalm

I don't recall suggesting that the marketplace operates with any defined precise parameters. Let's be realistic. I mentioned the basic structure. Judging by some of the comments it's certain there are some who believe in absolutes. Your anecdotes and examples of the marketplace are well described and interesting to reflect on. We've all got stories of getting and giving a great deal and also of paying and getting full retail.

Huh

"I don't recall suggesting that the marketplace operates with any defined precise parameters."

You said so just a few hours ago right here:

"Less expensive products being produced and less money spent on accountants. More money for workers!"

I've just told you it doesn't work that way. But my aunt, who listens to Bill Good religiously told me she heard a guy call up claiming he was a business owner who said he had hired 30 new employees and that this was a direct result of the HST.

I can only imagine how he runs his business.

Hmmmm... maybe that was Khalid Bajwa who called in - you know, Khaira Enterprises....hiring 'em doesn't mean he has to pay 'em...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/tree-planters-still-waiting-for-pay-lawyer-says/article2104381/

realisticman OR prevaricatorman

realisticman said:
"This simple example doesn't take into account the low-income rebates that are only paid out under the HST system."
>>Were the GST & the PST rebates imaginary?

>>When questioned, you boasted:
"Nothing in my post above is other than the facts."
>>Your true facts aren't very truthful OR,. realistic,man.

not Logical_hought

Logical_thought, said on two(2)occasions:
"The neccessities are not taxed by HST, not to mention that there are significant rebates to the poor. I don't know many poor people who get their hair cut.."
>>Neccessities are not taxed?
How about; Toilet Paper, Toothepaste, Toothbrush,Feminine products. A 6-pack of Muffins,Doughnuts, Buns, etc..no tax. Fewer than six of any of these,IS taxed.Now,that's a tax on singles, couples and the poor
A great number of Bulk foods & Baking products, that were not taxed before,now are.

Both parents in a family of 4,in Kelowna,must each earn $17/hr,full-time,(40hrs/week)just to stay even. That is $64,000+ combined,before Income Taxes.
Watch who you are calling poor.
Those "generous rebates," are not generous, nor are they a true rebate.
To further exclaim that poor people don't get hair-cuts, sadly shows what an hateful, uninformed person you appear to be.

Left and right arguments are dumbed down politics.

And people that use them (usually some sort of influence peddling media) are hoping you are not listening. Most of us are left on some issues and right on others. I still think that if the most caring folks are giving comments like these, on pages like this. Democracy is is doomed.

Zalm - The benefits of corporate tax reductions

When I recall the exact report I will forward a reference to you guys.
The basic premise was that tax cuts gave companies more funds to invest in new technologies. (some companies could just give the money to the shareholders and eventually get ground down by competitors)
New technologies implies more efficiencies and obviously higher employee productivity and, therefore, justification for higher salaries/wages.

John Corman

Please take the time to read the post my original comment was written as a response to.

IT WASN'T YOUR comment I was responding to and your take on it was meaningless.

There was only a contradiction in your mind - not in what I wrote.

Which is what often happens when someone steps into a conversation that's already underway.

And, if you're really interested in educating yourself (particularly about the lack of empirical evidence for the claim that tax cuts do anything positive for the economy - or workers - or the poor) - reading this book might be a good place to start:

Outrageous Fortunes: The Twelve Surprising Trends That Will Reshape the Global Economy by Daniel Altman.

And, if you'd like something a little shorter and more to the point, try the same author's article in Newsweek: http://www.newsweek.com/2011/07/17/narcissism-is-on-the-rise-in-america.html

It's mostly about America, but an awful lot of what he says applies equally to Canada.

John Corman

"When I recall the exact report I will forward a reference to you guys."

Let me save you some trouble. Jack Mintz and Michael Walker tried this one every year they were in the business. It's based on the Laffer curve. If you think we are all just graphs, you've got some 'splainin' to do.

Meanwhile, here's Jim Stanford and his CCPA cronies in their study by real economists on how corporate tax cuts do nothing for direct investment in jobs.

http://www.progressive-economics.ca/2011/04/14/historical-analysis-of-business-investment-and-taxes-going-back-to-1961/

Here's The Economist asking why firms getting access to cheap credit and tax cuts are not investing in workers but are instead hoarding cash.

http://www.economist.com/node/17173957
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/07/economic_recovery
(Hopefully it's not behind the firewall - I've a subscription. If it is, mebbe realisticman can check it for you)

Paul Krugman has pondered the same question - how can companies receiving tax breaks to hire workers rationalize instead the hoarding of cash?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/04/opinion/04krugman.html

And a number of other commentators pondering the same thing.
http://speakingofdemocracy.com/tag/tax-cuts/
http://talesfromthelou.wordpress.com/2011/04/16/canadas-corporate-income-tax-fight-whos-paying-what/
http://www.progressive-economics.ca/2011/03/23/corporate-taxation-and-investment-in-the-2011-federal-budget/

I'm sure you agree that a businessman who decided to hire people solely on the small savings resulting from the harmonization of two taxes into one, without considering the cost of credit; the opportunities in the market; hiring costs; support, equipment and other marginal costs for a new employee; where to get new business from sufficient to employ someone new; market conditions now and in the future - without consideration and quantification in a spreadsheet of all these things, and backed by a comprehensive business plan, such a one is likely to be the kind of businessman who will go out of business rather than grow his business.

Like the couple who has a child to save their marriage, the company that hires in bad times is often one gasp away from shuttering its doors forever.