Lewenza to NDP: anti-HST only benefits right wing
Ken Lewenza: "Andrea, the harmonized sales tax, as unpopular as it may be, cannot be an issue from the progressive side. It can't be an issue that makes Ontarians more cynical about taxes. We want to pay taxes. We want a civil society. We want health care. We want education. We want infrastructure. We do not want every Ontarian to think that taxes are bad ... The NDP is never going to get elected on a revolt on taxes. Never. The only ones who are going to benefit as a result of this fightback will be the Tories."
Ken Lewanza "worth repeating" in Toronto Star, Jan 24
_______________________________________________________________________
Ken Lewenza speech to CAW Council
http://www.caw.ca/assets/pdf/Ken_report-dec09-final.pdf
I want to raise the harmonized sales tax debate. I find it fascinating that in the province of Ontario, PC leader Tim Hudak, a Mike Harris clone, stands up and argues about the harmonized sales tax, takes the Legislature captive, and says he's Mr. Tax Fighter. He is an anti-union, antisocial,
anti-collective bargaining guy, and unpredictable. The fact of the matter is he's not doing this because he's going to eliminate the harmonized sales tax when he is in government he's doing it for political opportunism. He's doing it because it will enhance his position in the polls. We can't buy into this. Neither can my friends in the New Democratic Party.
I said to the Ontario NDP leader Andrea Horwath, "Andrea, the harmonized sales tax, as unpopular as it may be, cannot be an issue from the progressive side. It can't be an issue that makes Ontarians more cynical about taxes. We want to pay taxes. We want a civil society. We want health care. We want education. We want infrastructure. We do not want every Ontarian to think that taxes are bad.”
That does not mean the CAW supports the harmonized sales tax in its entirety. Obviously, they’ve got to give tax credits to seniors, tax credits to lower paid people and should exclude certain things. I have already said to Dalton McGuinty, on the advice of Jim Stanford, that he better not exclude the financial sector which is being contemplated today, because they make a helluva lot of money and should pay taxes for a civil society.
We are arguing about elements of the harmonized sales tax, but brothers and sisters, don't buy into this tax rage because if you do, as progressives, we will be destroyed because you need taxes for a just society, as a society that cares for one another. This union has always taken the position of fair taxation. Fair taxation doesn't mean harmonized sales tax.
It doesn't mean PST, it doesn't mean GST. It means a fairer taxation policy.
At the end of the day this is not an issue that the labour movement should take on.
We cannot join the Tories. We cannot join those that believe that we're over taxed, because if we believe we're over taxed, the next time you go to hospital, take your credit card. The next time a sewer in your neighbourhood has to be fixed, take your credit card. The next time you want garbage collection, take your credit card. The next time you jump on transit and see the increases that the private sector will develop vs. the public sector, take your credit card.
We've got to continue to fight for good jobs, good wages, pay fair taxes and fight for a civil society through that tax base.
I know there's a lot of controversy on this but the only ones who will have anything to gain will not be Ontarians. Do you know who is going to gain? The Conservative Party. The NDP is never going to get elected on a revolt on taxes. Never. The only ones who are going to benefit as a result of this fightback will be the Tories.
We have to concentrate our energies on jobs, on pensions, on precarious work, on the environment, and on good public services, because if we retreat from this our country and our provinces will be much different.
________________________________________
Um, yea.
There is nothing progressive about sales taxes.
Someone who earns $200,000 per year pays the same rate (and not much higher in terms of real dollars) than someone earning $50,000.
There are fairer and better ways to tax and pay for public services.
Their is a difference between being anti-tax, and being anti-unfair tax.
And there's also nothing regressive about sales taxes if combined with cash transfers to lower income earners.
Sales taxes are how the much-lauded Scandinavian countries fund their public services.
But do you think your average person is going to make this distinction? Right now the NDP comes across as the Canadian branch of the American teabaggers.
There is nothing progressive about sales taxes.
Trouble is, no political party is lobbying to eliminate sales taxes. And when Harper reduced the GST twice, the NDP opposed those moves (correctly IMO). So the question remains: is the anti-HST movement a movement to increase progressive taxation, or is it stoking and feeding off backward anti-tax sentiment? Lewenza makes (IMO) not the best argument, but the discussion should be held nonetheless.
Also, it's not good to misconstrue what Lewenza is saying. He's quite clear on this point:
It doesn't mean PST, it doesn't mean GST. It means a fairer taxation policy.
At the end of the day this is not an issue that the labour movement should take on.
What he's saying is that although sales taxes are inherently unfair, this particular HST movement is the wrong struggle for progressive people. And on that point - I fully agree with him.
The HST is a tax package that includes massive tax cuts for business and shifts it onto individuals. I wish to hell people would stop bleating about theory and look at the package actually in place in Ontario. If progressives don't fight this we might as well fold up the tent and go home because we are useless in fighting for things that will affect the average working person.
Stupid is as stupid does I guess.
But do you think your average person is going to make this distinction? Right now the NDP comes across as the Canadian branch of the American teabaggers.
To a lot of people around here, being against any tax = being anti-tax.
What does that have to do with what the "average person" thinks?
We cannot join those that believe that we're over taxed, because if we believe we're over taxed...
No one in the NDP said we're overtaxed, let alone beleives we're overtaxed.
All there is here is an assumption that if we are associated in any way with people who are ant-tax, then by osmosis or something the taint makes all of us 'anti-tax', or that we will be broadly read that way.
There is nothing to that except an assumption.
Sometimes that cigar is just a cigar. The vast majority of people in the 'universe' of who the NDP appeals to are going to see this for what it is: a protest against this tax increase.
You can argue that it will be otherwise. But none of you bother with that- you state as if it is fact.
Also, it's not good to misconstrue what Lewenza is saying. He's quite clear on this point:
It doesn't mean PST, it doesn't mean GST. It means a fairer taxation policy.
At the end of the day this is not an issue that the labour movement should take on.
What he's saying is that although sales taxes are inherently unfair, this particular HST movement is the wrong struggle for progressive people. And on that point - I fully agree with him.
Lewenza is anything but clear here. In essence he's saying 'we support fair taxes, but oppose the NDP's efforts to fight for them.'
I disagree with unionist that this is the wrong struggle for progressive people. I wish there was a lot more talk about fair taxes in Canadaian politics. I think it is a very important issue. Over the past generation, taxes in Canada have become a lot more regressive, with the middle class taking on an increasingly large proportion of the tax burden, while corporate tax payers have been increasingly left off the hook. This used to be a favorite campaign theme of Ed Broadbent's back in the day . But it has largely petered out since the Liberals backtracked on eliminating the GST. I think it's a noble issue, and a politically popular issue that could endear the NDP to a lot of suburban voters - I hope Layton runs with it.
Ken, Lou - I didn't hear you comment on whether the NDP should call for the abolition of sales taxes. Lewenza called them unfair. Should/will the NDP do likewise? Or will it just deal with this particular increase?
I don't trade in pipe dreams Unionist.
They just aren't the stuff of electoral politics. A political party can initiate a discussion about kinds of taxes- and even then you have to be careful how you frame the discussion.
But calling from where we are right now for the abolition of sales taxes would throw credibility into the bonfire. Though some might enjoy the glow for as long as it lasted.
But calling from where we are right now for the abolition of sales taxes would throw credibility into the bonfire.
You'll have to explain that to me. Who would oppose replacement of lost sales tax revenues by increased progressive income and corporate tax revenues?
I do not understand why supposedly progressive leaders keep deffending and promoting these flat taxes that benifit the wealthy and hurt the poor and working class.
I do not understand why supposedly progressive leaders keep deffending and promoting these flat taxes that benifit the wealthy and hurt the poor and working class.
Apparently, pointing out the obvious (about flat taxes) would be a "pipe dream". Maybe in the next century.
I know what Liwenza and others are trying to avoid, but I think we are already over the precipice. The only tack progressives can take on the issue of taxes is to try to steer the conversation into something less rabid and stupid than the "tax revolt" idiots that permeate the public discourse.
We should be outraged at taxation that doesn't go towards it's intended purpose. In Ontario, we should have had a violent backlash against the E-Health theft of a billion dollars, but progressives were rather mute on the subject.
If working people are faced with the fact that for every dollar collected, .80 cents of it goes to pay off interest and graft (which might not actually be two different things) then of course they are going to revolt against taxes.
The battle should be to change to public discourse on the subject of taxes to one of a discourse on government corruption.
The battle should be to change to public discourse on the subject of taxes to one of a discourse on government corruption.
Not sure about that. How do we defend social programs, promote new ones, fight against privatization and corporate tax cuts, when our emphasis is that "they're corrupt"? I'd rather see a discourse on why the corporations and the wealthy dictate policy. "Government corruption" can feed rightwing politics as well, or better, than left - see the U.S. for example.
Ken, Lou - I didn't hear you comment on whether the NDP should call for the abolition of sales taxes. Lewenza called them unfair. Should/will the NDP do likewise? Or will it just deal with this particular increase?
If you 'didn't hear' me comment on this, then you didn't listen very well. I pretty much proposed exactly this in post #7, immediatly before your comment.
I think the NDP should milk the HST for all it's worth, for sure. But I also would very much like to see a return to the 'fair tax' campaigns of the 80s. I think they are more relevant now than then.
Should the NDP campaign to abolish the GST? Probably not, for credibility reasons. But I'd love to see Layton propose to at least lower the GST and make up the revenue with more progressive taxes. Increasing sales taxes (like the HST does) while giving out corporate tax breaks, is not progressive.
But calling from where we are right now for the abolition of sales taxes would throw credibility into the bonfire.
You'll have to explain that to me. Who would oppose replacement of lost sales tax revenues by increased progressive income and corporate tax revenues?
Who would oppose it? Oh, for starters- a great deal of people whp now vote for the NDP, and probably union member who often or usually vote for the NDP at least close to if not above average on that.
They probably wouldn't flat out oppose it. But they would hold it against the NDP.
The NDP has low credibility even with its own supporters on tax and fiscal issues. And not for the reasons you think. Thay are generally ambivalent about whether we are to be trusted to manage the public purse. I don't advocate centrist pandering/cowering before that. But you don't just throw gas on the flames either.
Fair taxation is a necessary discussion- but its a long term one, and if you START with a straight up positioning such as you suggested above, what most people will hear, including way too many of our supporters, is "NDP going to raise taxes."
Like Lou, I don't like that we just avoid the whole larger framing of the question. Its a long educational project, and we need to begin 'stretching' the way people are acustomed to think... challenge them. But your short term approach will just get the NDP a kick in the teeth from its own supporters.
Not sure about that. How do we defend social programs, promote new ones, fight against privatization and corporate tax cuts, when our emphasis is that "they're corrupt"? I'd rather see a discourse on why the corporations and the wealthy dictate policy. "Government corruption" can feed rightwing politics as well, or better, than left - see the U.S. for example.
Well, it goes to how we need to stop defining "corruption" via the criminal code, and take on the popular deffinition. When money is siphoned off to consultants who do nothing, or taxes increased to pick up the slack because friends of the party in power are granted cuts or loop holes, that's corruption, and it certainly attacks social programs.
And, we have to hit on the fact that corporations and the wealthy dictating policy is corruption.
Yes, issues of corruption can feed right wing parties-- when they are out of power. But, we've seen Harper in action, how he's appointed his own taxpayer paid corporate lobbyists into the Senate, which is corrupt, and we've seen him back peddle as fast as he could from the Gomery Inquiry recomendations. (along with Bob Rae)
A lot of grass roots Conservatives who were motivated by Liberal corruption to become politically active for, and financially supportive of, Harper should be reminded of these things.
Fair taxation is a necessary discussion- but its a long term one, and if you START with a straight up positioning such as you suggested above, what most people will hear, including way too many of our supporters, is "NDP going to raise taxes."
So, the NDP should shout "Down with HST!", because people can "understand" that?
And people won't understand this: "Eliminate sales tax completely, and make up the difference by taxing the wealthy, the banks, and the corporations!"
Or maybe the real problem is that it will generate lots of opposition from the wealthy, the banks, and the corporations, and we don't have anyone around who is up for that fight?
You just can't have it both ways. How do you argue that sales tax is regressive (as the HST opponents do), but not argue to get rid of it?
I don't argue any of what you say.
Read what people are saying, not what you inferr between the lines. The NDP is opposing the increase in sales tax that goes with bringing the HSt around the country. There is nothing in there about dumping the sales tax... which in the hypothetical it happened would get the NDP a lot of cheers, which would not take long to turn to jeers after people read the fine print.
And despite what you prefer to think- neither I or the NDP gives a shit what the bankers think. But we are concerned about sudden desertion of a big chunk or our supporters.
I know read my saying that, but I guess it just doesn't fit in, so ignore it.
The right-wing spent close to 20 years making "taxes" and "social programs" dirty words. The left has not been effective in getting across the message that fair taxation is a fair price for civilization even as the right has hypocritically increased certain taxes which has partly contributed to the growing gap between rich and poor.
I really love it when critics of the NDP speak out against something that the party isn't doing (such as mindlessly parroting right wing anti-tax talking points).
The HST is part of a massive giveaway to business and will hurt the average Ontarian. I would think that Ken Lewenza would want to oppose that.
Agreed. Totally.
ETA: Agree with Scott too. But I was agreeing with Polunatic's previous statement- and did not look until now where my comment ended up.
As a CAW member, I've kinda been dumbstruck at the economic pronouncements from my union ever since Sam Gindin retired. They seem.... not completely thought out.
As a CAW member, I've kinda been dumbstruck at the economic pronouncements from my union ever since Sam Gindin retired. They seem.... not completely thought out.
My impression also - from the outside looking in. But rather than attacking NDP critics as Scott does on an ad hominem basis, how about we deal with the content of this thread? Is the HST such a horrible giveaway, in and of itself, that we must risk feeding the anti-tax meme in order to gain some putative political points (which we won't anyway) by opposing it, while saying nothing about getting rid of sales taxes in general?
I had my doubts about the BC NDP's tax policy, but what's going on in Ontario?
I don't know how to deal with this specific problem without untangling just how we should view taxation in general. I think one of the reasons the NDP and others on the left get all tangled up and are easy targets for the right is because we haven't shaped our position from a principled base.
I mean, if we weren't paying off bankers and made sure-- within the scope of human possibilities-- that every dollar collected went to work for it's stated purpose, maybe we could actually reduce taxes for everyone, and still maintain social programs that people want.
We get hamstrung on these conversations because we know that the right wants to use the deficit and debt as an excuse to cut taxes in their "starve the beast" program to essentially rid the world of democratic governments in favour of a Corporate Riech. Let's be plain-- that's their objective. And they are well along the way to it.
I think we all see the sense in borrowing money in a recession, but because the right howls about deficit, we feel obligated to forget that we should be championing paying off that deficit in good times, and eliminating the debt entirely. Debt means the debtors own you.
I think we on the left forget that.
And, when we seek to employ the tax regime to modify social behaviors, we open the door to the tax regime being abused to corruptly give this person or that entity a tax break or loophole or "incentive" purly for familial or partizan reasons.
I don't think we can untangle ourselves from the knots we get tied in by the right without being reductionist about taxes and taxation.
Currently, in Ontario the ONDP is against the HST. Does it, as Lewenza fears, play into the right's anti taxation, starve the beast, welcome to the Corporate Riech formula? Maybe, if all we ever do is have knee jerk reactions to tax ideas proposed by the right, instead of finding a way to flip over the game board and start fresh.
Why do the two stale old line parties want the HST? What's their reasoning for it?
Excuse me? I first responded to the substance of his criticism, then pointed out why he should be opposed to the HST. That's the antithesis of an ad hominem attack.
McGuinty and Mintz (used to) agree: HST bad for jobs
November 4, 2009 - 10:00am
NDP Finance Critic Michael Prue reminded Ontarians about the dangers of the HST today.
"McGuinty's unfair tax scheme will make it harder to make ends meet and to find a job," said Prue. "The Premier and his own experts agree – at least they used to."
Prue noted that in a previous study Jack Mintz said the HST would slow job growth:
“These more positive results would come at the cost of a longer and deeper period of short-term loss, including, for example, an estimated reduction of just under 38,000 jobs in the second year.” (CD Howe Institute, Sep. 2008, p. 20)
And Jack Mintz said the HST would drive down real wages:
“After several years of somewhat higher unemployment, however, workers come to accept the real wage losses…” (CD Howe Institute, Sep. 2008, p. 9)
Of course, Dalton McGuinty said the HST was a bad idea too:
“Cutting corporate taxes will create more financial trouble by starving the provincial treasury of much-needed revenue, and harmonizing the sales taxes will only end up hurting consumers.” (Nov. 25, 2008) [ ...]
Then again, Liberals used to denounce Jack Mintz as an "Alberta academic" whose ideas "didn't work":
“…We don't agree with Mr. Mintz…Our taxes were the ones that were recommended to us by Ontario businesses, not by Alberta academics. That old neo-conservative attitude didn't work. (McGuinty Finance Minister Dwight Duncan, Sep. 28, 2008)
Economist Erin Weir criticizes HST
Excuse me? I first responded to the substance of his criticism, then pointed out why he should be opposed to the HST. That's the antithesis of an ad hominem attack.
You're correct - you responded to the substance of what Lewenza said and why he should oppose the HST.
But I was referring to this, which I thought was aimed more broadly than Lewenza:
If I read that wrong, I apologize.
And by the way, I agree with the need to oppose the HST. My point, as you will have noticed, is different.
I would really appreciate it if people would go look up the previous umpteen number of threads on the HST. Somebody could do to send them to Lewenza who clearly does not understand the tax package the HST is a part of given his comments.
As I have pointed out a number of times I sat in on the government consultations at a high level in the sectoral consultations about HST implementation. The government's own numbers are full of crap, something we were able to pick to threads in a few moments of number crunching. The benefits for individuals are very over-stated, the impact on small and medium business, especially in service oriented sectors will be mostly negative. The big winner- the largest, most profitable corportations.
To not stand up and oppose the HST would have been a total abandonment of progressive values by the NDP, something some seem to be counselling because they seem to want to give the current government the benefit of the doubt rather than to actually work in the real interests of working men and women of the province of Ontario.
Shame on them I say, and thank goodness someone is trying to make these right wing tools in government at the provincial and federal level for their complicity in undermining social spending by short-changing government by handing over more money in tax cuts than they will be bring in off individuals through the HST.
Currently, in Ontario the ONDP is against the HST. Does it, as Lewenza fears, play into the right's anti taxation, starve the beast, welcome to the Corporate Riech formula? Maybe, if all we ever do is have knee jerk reactions to tax ideas proposed by the right, instead of finding a way to flip over the game board and start fresh.
I guess you've summed it up better than I was able to, Tommy. But it's tough to have these discussions without it becoming a "for or vs. the NDP" diversion.
You just can't have it both ways. How do you argue that sales tax is regressive (as the HST opponents do), but not argue to get rid of it?
By arguing that we need to slowly lower it and replace it with a fair tax system, instead of increasing it, as the HST does.
As I pointed out before. Just saying.
Is the HST such a horrible giveaway, in and of itself, that we must risk feeding the anti-tax meme in order to gain some putative political points (which we won't anyway) by opposing it, while saying nothing about getting rid of sales taxes in general?
We'll I've said repeatedly on this thread that I think the way to handle it is to talk about 'fair taxes' and replacing sales taxes with more progressive forms of taxation. It was a mantra of Ed Broadbent when he was leader and I believe it is still NDP policy. I appear to be talking to myself. Much easier unionist to debate a hypothetical bogey man instead of listening to what people are actually saying.
This thread was started because the CAW President said fighting the HST wasn't worth the time of the left. Unionist said he agreed with that. Once he didn't get the answers he liked, he went on to try to turn this into a parsing of NDP policy. But on the broad issue, Lewenza is dead wrong.
But it's tough to have these discussions without it becoming a "for or vs. the NDP" diversion.
Unionist, that is exactly what you are doing. You started by stating you agree with Lewenza for arguing that the HST is not worth the time of progressives, but when that didn't go well, you have tried to switch the goal posts into a fight about the NDP.
Jeez that's the first time that has ever happened
Because the idea of taxes in itself isn't bad, is no reason for the left to the support a bad tax. The HST is a bad tax. I don't care how you present it. A tax that costs someone on a fixed income the same amount as a billionaire is a bad tax. And tax credits in April do not replace dollars out of your pocket for heating, electricity, telephone, transportation, and basic utilities today. This, once more, represents a shift of the tax burden from corporations to the people who were once citizens and voters and who are now only ever passive consumers.
It is disturbing that unions and various other so-called "progressive" organizations are supporting this tax. A VAT is a tax for an economy that doesn't produce anything but only consumes. It is a tax for a retail/service economy which is an economy marked by low wages, insufficient hours, few rights, but high debt.
But it's tough to have these discussions without it becoming a "for or vs. the NDP" diversion.
Unionist, that is exactly what you are doing. You started by stating you agree with Lewenza for arguing that the HST is not worth the time of progressives, but when that didn't go well, you have tried to switch the goal posts into a fight about the NDP.
Lou, you're supposed to be a moderator - so please, start at the top of the thread, and see where I said anything against the NDP, or even who raised it first. Please show me how I tried to switch those goal posts. You may want to refer to Ken's posts, by the way. I'm serious, Lou. I agree with Lewenza that this is not the right campaign to be waging - unless (my take) we clearly make it about progressive taxation and deal with fundamentals.
Moderators get to play in the thick of it too. Not like michelle didn't on a regular basis. Its hard to do both, but if people want to put in the work, they can.
I don't see any need for moderation at the moment, so why shouldn't Lou get in there?
I am a moderator, and I've been reading this thread very carefully before posting, something I've already caught you very much not doing. I guess I have to do this again.
For starters, I've never claimed that you made any statements against the NDP, only that you keep trying to move the discussion onto the NDP after it was about the importance or not of the left/labour movement/progressives taking on the HST.
In post #3, you posed the following question:
So the question remains: is the anti-HST movement a movement to increase progressive taxation, or is it stoking and feeding off backward anti-tax sentiment?
A good question, BA addressed it in post #5, and I addressed it in post #7.
In post #8, you claimed to not hear me calling on the NDP to address sales taxes more broadly, even though I did just that in post #7. In other words unionist, I agreed with you.
In post #16, Ken agreed with me that the NDP should broaden the frame in which it talks about these issues.
No one, including the NDP partisans on this board, is claiming the NDP should oppose the HST in isolation. I don't disagree with you on that point, and I don't think anyone else in this thread does either.
However, I do disagree with you when you say:
What he's saying is that although sales taxes are inherently unfair, this particular HST movement is the wrong struggle for progressive people. And on that point - I fully agree with him.
And that's what I've been trying to debate with you.
The NDP stuff is a sideshow you keep raising.
It's distracting, and it damages your credibility.
You should drop it.
Lou TORCHED Unionist's ass. He Torched it!
Tamaran, you are jumping into the middle of a very vigourous discussion among a group of people with no small amount of creds in the field with this? You comment is unhelpful, a unthought out, unneccesarily provacative, and a distraction. Please refrain.
Moderators are allowed to mix it up in debates too.
What he's saying is that although sales taxes are inherently unfair, this particular HST movement is the wrong struggle for progressive people. And on that point - I fully agree with him.
Alongside protecting jobs, a topmost thing in the CAW's mind these days is probably how to topple federal Conservatives while keeping them from provincial power. Mounting pressure from the left and right against the HST are a serious threat to this goal. Not only does it make the trial baloons on raising the GST federally nearly impossible, it also makes Premier Tim Hudak in Ontario possible.
It was interesting that one of the first speakers at the Toronto anti-prorogue rally re-ashed the "ABC" slogan ("Anything But Conservatives"). We're all starting to look to the next elections in Ottawa and Ontario, and progressives are again weighing their options. On one side, NDP populist campaigns see an opportunity to gain seats by riding an anti-tax sentiment. On the other side, are progressives who care less about NDP seats and more about avoiding Hudak and the gang from taking power. Sure, the HST makes for a fascinating policy discussion that could go on forever, but one's final opinion is most likely to be shaped by whether you're an NDP-lover or a Conservative-hater. We know where Lewanza stands on that. He just happens to be anticipating the debate and getting out ahead of it.
Maybe you have some inside information, but I don't see where Lewenza generally stands on that divide... if he identifies it at all.
He's saying its THIS policy diff with the NDP, and I do not yet see sufficient reason to read more into than that.
What he's saying is that although sales taxes are inherently unfair, this particular HST movement is the wrong struggle for progressive people. And on that point - I fully agree with him.
Alongside protecting jobs, a topmost thing in the CAW's mind these days is probably how to topple federal Conservatives while keeping them from provincial power. Mounting pressure from the left and right against the HST are a serious threat to this goal. Not only does it make the trial baloons on raising the GST federally nearly impossible, it also makes Premier Tim Hudak in Ontario possible.
It was interesting that one of the first speakers at the Toronto anti-prorogue rally re-ashed the "ABC" slogan ("Anything But Conservatives"). We're all starting to look to the next elections in Ottawa and Ontario, and progressives are again weighing their options. On one side, NDP populist campaigns see an opportunity to gain seats by riding an anti-tax sentiment. On the other side, are progressives who care less about NDP seats and more about avoiding Hudak and the gang from taking power. Sure, the HST makes for a fascinating policy discussion that could go on forever, but one's final opinion is most likely to be shaped by whether you're an NDP-lover or a Conservative-hater. We know where Lewanza stands on that. He just happens to be anticipating the debate and getting out ahead of it.
You must live in a different Ontario than I do. For the most part a Hudak governmen scares me no more or less than a continued McGuinty government. Enough with the theory have a look what the Liberals have actually done in Ontario over the last number of years. Sure the rhetoric is kindler and gentler, but on issue after issues the McGuinty Liberals have been a caretaker government of the Harris agenda.
For the most part a Hudak governmen scares me no more or less than a continued McGuinty government.
Time will eventually tell if Ontario's labour movement shares your opinion, or if significant elements adopt a strategic voting stand in 2011.
As a person who watches closely any hard studies or pollings that break down wh votes for whom, I think its safe to say that we'll never really know how union members vote. Which wont stop anyone from making pronouncements.
And even if its pretty clear that union members vote for the Liberals, there are a number of more compelling pushes towards that than observers perceptions of what they consider to be strategic voting. Because you know [or may in the future know] lots of people who are highly motivated by fear of the reurn of the PCs, does not make it a a broadly operative trend.
Until the ONDP gets a lot more credible, a lot more of everybody- union members included- is going to simply say "I'd rather have the Liberals than the NDP." Period.
And even if its pretty clear that union members vote for the Liberals, ...
Where?
That would be: if it turns out there is evidence that union members vote more for the Liberals, then ..... [the likely suspects, generally speaking, are/aren't _______]
For the most part a Hudak governmen scares me no more or less than a continued McGuinty government.
Time will eventually tell if Ontario's labour movement shares your opinion, or if significant elements adopt a strategic voting stand in 2011.
Then they will have been giving an anti-working person government a free ride, because McGuinty has done almost nothing different than Harris and Eves did except have nicer rhetoric, where it counts, on real things, not nice speeches, this government has been nothing but a caretaker government for the Harris agenda, so they will be fighting against a boogey man that is already in their house.
The Libs, BA, took over from the Cons because enough people could see the province was bankrupting itself with lower tax offerings to all. Just as we now see Steve has been doing up Ottawa way. The GST would bring in another $12 B annually if he has not used it as a come-on to those who are now going to pay more than the $250 a year saved (average income) just in interest on the debt.
McGuinty is not implementing HST out of some masochistic drive, his back is to the fiscal wall. If he can't show a way out of this mess in two years time, he's gone.
What New Democrats must ask is, where in hell is the loot coming from for our book balancing?
I put it this way because I have not seen much discussion about the collapsing medical care and long term care for the aged in this province....let alone the probably $40 B needed just to catch up with infrastructure collapse. And what is needed to extend aid for education at both ends of the age spectrum, etc. etc.
Concerns for "appearances" out there on the hustings should perhaps involve balancing of books. Lewenza is clearly concerned with that because his membership is concerned with it. You know, the unionized worker!!!! He has kids to educate and a pension fund to build, and municipal taxes, besides all the others. He is not looking at this except as one who does the math in his head when there is a play from pure theory.
This isn't about balancing the Ontario budget. The HST will actually leave the Ontario government with less money in its coffers (since the tax cuts for business outweigh the additional revenue). That's why the feds needed to kick in their $4.3 billion in "incentives".
And under McGuinty there will be a loss of $2.3 billion in public spending between 2010 and 2012. It's their only alternative under the neoliberalorama.
George, there isn't a single tax change that the Liberals reversed. They brought in their health tax, but that was just put to general revenues. As Scott points out above the HST package will actually cost the Ontario treasury. Some estimates I have seen, and they can only be estimates at this point, suggest for every new dollar in taxation through the HST, the entire package will actually shortchange the budget by $1.05.
This is why I have said repeatedly that anyone who supports social spending, even just remaining constant, let alone seeing some increases in needed areas should be loudly and publicly opposing this plan.
And besides I will take no progressive values lessons from a government that fritter's away a billion dollars on nothing beside enriching their cronies at eHealth. A scandal that should have caused the Liberals to be driven from the language of progressives for a generation and is likely only the very tippy-top of the iceberg.
Is it possible that Lewenza and the CAW isn't opposing the HST because they know the organizations that employ CAW workers are probably for adopting the HST? This seems rational, to me. Lewenza is not a political leader - he is the spokesperson for an organization with a specific agenda.
Lewenza is certainly privy to more information on industry matters than any of us. If a piece of business taxation is favourable to his organization's direct employers, then does he not have an obligation to do what's best for CAW workers?
That's not an unfair take on it, Farmpunk. And who could blame anyone in manufacturing, let alone the leader of the CAW trying to scrape and claw any advantage that they can these days?
But, if that's the best light we can put on it, it's still rather short sighted. Giving the employer a tax break by taking it out of our pockets is a roundy bout way of taking yet another concession.
Carl Sagan warned that the "slippery slope" or "thin edge of the wedge" argument is a falacious one: taken to logical conclusion, any direction taken can be said to be the "slippery slope" or "thin edge of the wedge".
Be that as it may, I have to point out that the people of Canada have been granting concessions to corporations in terms of taxation, of law, and, substantially in wages and benifits, all to the cause of employment.
What, I ask, is today's unemployment rate?
It seems a flawed strategy-- from a worker's perspective. These concessions aren't getting the desired result.
I don't really think there are more than marginal advantages in the HST to a manufacturer that does not sell much of production in Ontario. And all businesses get a saving out of the simpler administration of the HST.
I have never understood the argument of simpler administration. Administration, so to speak, is a computer program that aids retailers and businesses. The numbers are just changed and the invoices are filed as always. It's simple math that even a pen and paper book-keeper - if one still exists - could add in the roughly the same time as the dual taxes.
None of which really matters to Lewenza, unless the CAW books are in need of simplification.
This isn't about balancing the Ontario budget. The HST will actually leave the Ontario government with less money in its coffers (since the tax cuts for business outweigh the additional revenue). That's why the feds needed to kick in their $4.3 billion in "incentives".
The next three elections, municipal, provincial and federal, will be about balancing budgets. It is going to get hard as hell for progressives not to work social group against social group. Lewenza sees this as a potential wedge issue to be avoided. I think we should run with the public pension issue and incorporate this one as a source of funding... make it everyone's bloody goal, and work out the details of how to make it pay as we go. And suddenly social democrats will be "responsible economists."
BTW I know Sam Gindin. He does not support the anti-HST campaign at all.
I think you're right about the political implications - this is building the Right.
I've been absent from here for a while. Frankly I've been frustrated that I haven't been able to get my point across. I'm currently doing research on taxation and can't deal with stuff right now - but I blame myself for this. I see where BA is coming from but a lot of people on this board seem to be totally unaware of how social democracies fund things. That doesn't mean McGuinty is some sort of Swedish-style socialist, but the issue is the business and personal tax cuts - not this sideshow about an "unfair tax grab." The idea that ordinary people are "overtaxed" is a myth of the populist right.
I have never understood the argument of simpler administration. Administration, so to speak, is a computer program that aids retailers and businesses. The numbers are just changed and the invoices are filed as always. It's simple math that even a pen and paper book-keeper - if one still exists - could add in the roughly the same time as the dual taxes.
None of which really matters to Lewenza, unless the CAW books are in need of simplification.
And if I'm one of the thousands of small business that deal in mere retail commerce should I be concerned with the book-keeping dilemmas that come with the territory of being a business that deals in the volume you use as an example?
I do agree with you, Pogo. Business paperwork isn't fun or easy - it's necessary. But of all the things to champion to the people of Ontario, helping businesses streamline their accounting headaches doesn't strike me as firm policy.
That doesn't mean McGuinty is some sort of Swedish-style socialist, but the issue is the business and personal tax cuts - not this sideshow about an "unfair tax grab." The idea that ordinary people are "overtaxed" is a myth of the populist right.
But the NDP is not saying that people are 'overtaxed'. You are simply assuming an equivalency. An arguement could in principle be made of HOW the NDP doing anything about protesting particular taxes actively fosters right dominated populist general anti-tax sentiment. But you haven't made that arguement, and the empirical support would be challenging at best. You and others have simply made statements that it is all the same.
And you have by the way got your point across. There is this thing called political discourse and disagreement.
Since we've disagreed strongly on this issue, i hope you are not including me in "a lot of people on this board seem to be totally unaware of how social democracies fund things." That didn't come up in discussions we have both been in, and therefore you know nothing of what I do or do not know about how social democracies fund themselves.
And if I'm one of the thousands of small business that deal in mere retail commerce should I be concerned with the book-keeping dilemmas that come with the territory of being a business that deals in the volume you use as an example?
I do agree with you, Pogo. Business paperwork isn't fun or easy - it's necessary. But of all the things to champion to the people of Ontario, helping businesses streamline their accounting headaches doesn't strike me as firm policy.
I hesitated to get into this because I agree its not really an issue.
But just because you haven't noticed the difference in your business doesn't mean that the administration costs of different taxes are not material.
Still, given all the public policy implications of different taxes, the cost differences between collecting the GST/HST and typical provincial taxes is really small potatoes.
For fuck sakes, I'm not whining about the fact that people disagree with me. I'm saying I've needed a break and I've been personally frustrated. So what? If I say that's how I feel I'm somehow rejecting "political discourse."
I really don't have time for your condescending crap.
And yes, running an "Unfair Tax Grab" campaign - yes that's what it called - to me comes across as saying "ordinary people are overtaxed." You wouldn't call a tax CUT a tax GRAB would you? But I guess I'm just not brilliant enough to get what the NDP is saying.
I guess I'm just going to write "I believe that" in every sentence for now on. How is this:
"It is my belief that...the NDP's anti-HST campaign is fuelling rightwing populism. Since it seems to me that there are similar talking points about the "tax grab" in both the PC and ONDP campaigns, people might be led to believe that taxes are bad and I am worried about the implications of that. And while unfortunately I don't have the list of every government that got elected by running on anti-tax campaign, I am pretty sure - but I can't say with 100% absolute certainty - it is usually rightwing parties that are the beneficiaries of such movements."
the issue is the business and personal tax cuts - not this sideshow about an "unfair tax grab
I agree with that, but that is why it's important that the HST be recognized as a tax shift, not a tax grab. But I also disagree with you in that any tax that is regressive, that taxes the poorest at proportionally the same rate as the richest, is inherently unfair.
Condecension cuts a lot of directions.
I've seen an awful lot of people saying 'you don't understand'... you don't have the correct ideas etc. And I see that coming from you.
I didnt say you are whining about people disagreeing with you. I said that you are chalking what is actually disagreement to 'lack of understanding'.
And yes, running an "Unfair Tax Grab" campaign - yes that's what it called - to me comes across [to you] as saying "ordinary people are overtaxed."
I guess I'm just going to write "I believe that" in every sentence for now on. How is this:
"It is my belief that...the NDP's anti-HST campaign is fuelling rightwing populism. Since it seems to me that there are similar talking points about the "tax grab" in both the PC and ONDP campaigns, people might be led to believe that taxes are bad and I am worried about the implications of that. And while unfortunately I don't have the list of every government that got elected by running on anti-tax campaign, I am pretty sure - but I can't say with 100% absolute certainty - it is usually rightwing parties that are the beneficiaries of such movements."
It isn't necessary to preface everything with "its my belief that". Thats the polar extreme from just treating things as self-evidently equivalent. There is a plenty of territory between.
"But I guess I'm just not brilliant enough to get what the NDP is saying." What the NDP is saying is actually quite simple. Whats complicated is you justifying what you read into it.
In Denmark and Sweden - the social democracies that I think of NDP supporters I would think would believe we could learn a lot from - they have VATs of about 25% with very few exemptions. They are a very powerful revenue-raising tool. The revenue raised from them is then redistributed via transfers. In fact it is the transfers that do the most in terms of reducing inequality in the Scandinavian countries. That's how their welfare states are financed. In Sweden the unions have supported the VAT since the late 1960s.
This is not to say we shouldn't have a very progressive income tax as well. I think I've said repeatedly that these tax cuts included in the HST package are deplorable. But you also need a healthy tax mix.
For many here the fact that these tax cuts are being implemented at the same time as harmonizing the tax is good enough reason to go into all-out war against the HST and make it the defining issue. I disagree. I say oppose the income and business tax cuts and at the same time call for a big increase in taxes on the top 10% of earners. I also think the GST cut ought to be reversed or use the increased revenue to increase transfers to low-income households. Canadian taxation levels are far below OECD levels and that is a problem. Rather than run away from "tax and spend" - the NDP ought to make a case for it.
After all it's nice to hear what the NDP is FOR.
Rather than run away from "tax and spend" - the NDP ought to make a case for it.
After all it's nice to hear what the NDP is FOR.
Thanks for offering us the cup of hemlock.
Your stake in the survival of the NDP is what now?
Which only invalidates your offer of the poisoned cup, not your general points.
High consumption taxes do have a place in social democracies [and the conservative govenments that temporarily succeed them]. When you have many form of income redistribution through the taxation and benefits system, the regressive qualities consumption taxes have for us are neutered.
But that doen't tell us ANYTHING about how we get from A to B. Nor does it tell us a thing about whether the NDP opposing some taxes does any harm to the potential long term project of increasing income redistribution and its benefits.
It is on the other hand perfectly valid to criticize the NDP for doing nothing to facilitate that long term project. Most if not all of the NDP partisans here have said something like that already.
Maybe you're right...I just can't see the ONDP having any credibility if their message is "Down with the HST!" (until July 1) and then turn around and run a "Tax and Spend" campaign after that.
Maybe you're right...I just can't see the ONDP having any credibility if their message is "Down with the HST!" (until July 1) and then turn around and run a "Tax and Spend" campaign after that.
What do you think HST revs will be used for? Nordic style social programs in Bananada? The NDP is guilty only of knowing how the two stale old line parties operate. And after monopolizing and sharing power for 14 decades in a row in Ottawa, they've become predictable.
No I don't think the HST revenues will be used for socialism "Bananada style." Whatever good that could come out of the HST is scuttled away by corporate tax cuts.
Maybe you're right...I just can't see the ONDP having any credibility if their message is "Down with the HST!" (until July 1) and then turn around and run a "Tax and Spend" campaign after that.
I think I made it pretty clear there's no desire to do that. Like I said, making the case for government services and eventually for expanded income redistribution is a long term project. What I did not say here, but have before, is that going at that in simplisticly didactic fashion will never succeed. If Tommy Douglas had hit the citizens of Saskatchewan with a full blown medicare plan from the beginning, it would have failed. The case was built over time, and a little at a time, in a kind of conversation.
The NDP is doing nothing about that long term project. But whether what is being done now is harmful or encourages a right wing agenda is a different question.
Ken:
"The NDP is doing nothing about that long term project. But whether what is being done now is harmful or encourages a right wing agenda is a different question."
LP: "After all, it's nice to hear what the NDP is for."
Since the Ontario New Democrats have already set in motion the idea that another public pension scheme (provincial) is needed, it would seem to me that we would have to pay for it somehow. Could the party Poo-Bahs support the HST as the funding base for that new pension? (It would not be a reversal of party policy so much as an attempt to make the lemon into something needed by all those who are without the prospect of a company pension...or a decent life in their final years.
I do hate to see violent debate about what might be, while huge human needs stare us in the face.In all honesty George I am having trouble figuring out what part of the enitre HST package will actually cost the Ontario Treasury more than it takes in you are missing.
This isn't a theoretical discussion on taxation. It is an on the ground tax package. That's the choice, support this bad tax plan, or oppose it. There is no middle ground. The HST is a bad tax, poorly designed, that taxes fundamental human needs in Ontario's climate like heat and hydro and provides inadequete tax credits well after the amount has been spent and missing from people's bank accounts. Sure if you are Lewenza you can afford to have that money out of your account for a few months, if you are living paycheque to paycheque or on a lower fixed income it will hurt hard and the 'recovery' will come well after it is needed.
I'm guessing most here will not have seen the earlier very parallel discussion between myself and Lord Palmerston over policy and election platform of the NS NDP.
For what its worth, I parted being actively involved with the NSNDP a few years back, primarily because I fundamentally disagreed with the strategy of flying under the radar to get to power. In my books, ask for no mandate and you'll do nothing when you do get to power. The mandate doesn't have to be radical, but it has to be something.
But my strong disagreement with LP in those discussions was essentially the same as it is here: I don't think there was anything harmful to the NDPs program or approach.... and that there is no evidence at all that the approach will play into the right wing taxation and spending meme that has dominated thought for decades now.
What the NSNDP lacked [lacks], as does the NDP in general, is any will, let alone a plan, to do anything about breaking through that.
Frank and brutal as that may sound, its no reason for me personally to go looking elsewhere. I judge on outcomes and likely outcomes... and on that score, I think the rest of the left easily trumps the NDP for futility and impotence.
BA, I noted this announcement with real anticipation way back on Jan 13 (two weeks ago);
Torstar's columnist at Queen's Park, Jim Coyle, today applauded Andrea's lead on this issue...(she has) "shrewdly tried to seize it as her own, calling for a pblicly run plan to help the 65 per cent of Ontarioans who do not have a work-based pension.
"To the NDP's credit, MPP Paul Miller was dispatched over the summer on a provincewide tour to investigate pensions. " And Horwath said OPntarians "have told us they want a retirement savings plan that will let them retire with security, dignity and the quality of life they've worked hard to build."
Coyle said "Andrea Horwath seems up for the job," of "pension champion" that was called for in a provincial report a year ago.
Note Coyle's (the liberal) halting applause "to the NDP's credit" ? This is a huge breakthrough in the MSM . The NDP is actually proposing something...and it has been investigated (if not costed) in depth.
Haven't seen a damned thing about it since, even though it is working up to be a critical concern for the MAJORITY of Ontarians. Perhaps we can continue this, while on a roll (: D) and actually explain how the pension would be funded? All I'm trying to develop is an explanation for that given the givens ...the HST is a done deal.
As for "ONtario's climate", I tried for decades to build awareness of our critical need for a viable energy future - particularly for those faced with maintaining energy inefficient old houses and a energy market taken over by deregulation of pricing. We might have to provide support to low-income people as Britain is doing. But first...yes there IS a middle ground. It's called politics, being political rather than martyred ideologues. And proposing solutions for real questions of budget needs. The workers of the world understand that...they have to practise it, right? (And please excuse the heat from this end. I'm tired of speculation around which life jacket to put on).
Big time thread drift:
With the benefit of hindsight, had the NSNDP chosen as a minority of us wanted to build a broader mandate, in the current circumstances I don't think it would have made any difference in the basic fiscal path the government takes.
You don't make sudden moves at the beginning even when you do have a clear mandate to push what government does, but the depth of the problem faced now were not clear a couple years ago.
Related: in many ways provincial governments are not the place for pushing through the limits of the right wing meme. But considering we are starting from zero, even just having a discussion would be substantial progress. Not to mention the possible gains to a longer term project, and spillover to the national level where there is room to manouver, of even doing mild tinkering something like this:
"We accept that a small province simply cannot afford to have a broad spectrum of taxes that are higher than in other jurisdictions. But the negative consequences of ________ , or _________ tax increases are acceptable and manageable. Therefore.... "
[And two of the most likely 'fill in the blanks' are significantly higher sales taxes (with more rigorous low and middle income counter subsidies and service increases), and significant surtaxes on the highest income tax brackets (except that probably raises only pocket change).]
The HST is a bad tax, poorly designed, that taxes fundamental human needs in Ontario's climate like heat and hydro and provides inadequete tax credits well after the amount has been spent and missing from people's bank accounts. Sure if you are Lewenza you can afford to have that money out of your account for a few months, if you are living paycheque to paycheque or on a lower fixed income it will hurt hard and the 'recovery' will come well after it is needed.
The extent of mitigating measures--like credits for low and modest income households and exclusions of key items--define whether consumption taxes are more or less progressive. In Ontario, the NDP has been largely absent from this policy dimension to the HST proposal. Anti-poverty activists have chosen to actively pursue the policy debate, and have challenged the government to deliver appropriate threshold for credits, to deliver cheques in ways that compliment existing GST credits, to work with community-based organizations to increase tax filing among low income households, etc. Different people will side with different approaches (they are probably complementary), but goes to show that perhaps this issue is not "you're either with us or against us," but a matter of what kind of impact one is seeking.
Well said and refreshing, George and Lola.
George, I am again totally confused by your response. Which is why I posted above.
The total tax package that includes the HST actually amounts to a cut in government revenues. So less money- not more money.
The pension program, as I understand it, is meant to be self-funding, like all other pension plans, based on contributions from employees and employers.
I totatlly fail to see how you are connecting them and why you are assuming the HST will pay for anything beyond a very large slice of tax cuts for the most profitable corporations and income tax cuts that will primarily, although not exclusively, benefit the most comfortable- people like Lewenza for example.
What we should be anticipating is massive cuts to spending by this government, not increased spending, and those cuts I fear are just right around the corner, and will likely be deeper BECAUSE of the HST tax package. They will have to be, because less, not more money will be coming in. It is pretty simple math.
The extent of mitigating measures--like credits for low and modest income households and exclusions of key items--define whether consumption taxes are more or less progressive. In Ontario, the NDP has been largely absent from this policy dimension to the HST proposal. Anti-poverty activists have chosen to actively pursue the policy debate, and have challenged the government to deliver appropriate threshold for credits, to deliver cheques in ways that compliment existing GST credits, to work with community-based organizations to increase tax filing among low income households, etc. Different people will side with different approaches (they are probably complementary), but goes to show that perhaps this issue is not "you're either with us or against us," but a matter of what kind of impact one is seeking.
This is complete hogwash. The NDP has spent an enourmous amount of its time pointing out how this tax will hit the most economiclly vunerable in Ontario. It is pretty hard to have a discussion with someone who has a penchant for just making shit up. And what a totally offensive suggestion to liken those who, based on solid numbers and expeirence, oppose this tax package are somehow akin to George Bush's speech. Your minimization and demonization of those who disagree with you are typical of this Liberal government in Ontario and the federal Conservative government who cooked up this Faustian bargin.
It is quite possible to point out the fundamental flaws of this taxation plans and come to the conclusion that opposing the measures makes a lot more sense then trying to get a government who has a terrible record on social saftey net issues to re-arrange a few deck chairs.
I do hate to see violent debate about what might be, while huge human needs stare us in the face.
yes, how do you make McGuinty style promises for this and that and 48 other things while the western world economy is so fragile today? The Howe Institute produced a report that second guesses the feds on unfunded public sector pension liabilities of something like $58 billion or so. So the federal debt is actually larger than the Harpers have announced, depending on bond rates of return and some other actuary and accounting stuff which I am probably not understanding. Electioneering toward four year terms - that's what our antiquated electoral system demands of our political parties and no more. Add a stupefying global in scope recession, and the ONDP and federal counterparts are playing it by ear as well as they can. The NDP didn't create this neoliberalorama now on the rocks. That was the other two parties in power federally for the last 30 years. It's broken, and now people want specifics from the NDP. I think that the half of Canadians who do vote are not ready for straight up medicine from the NDP quite yet. They need to see more of the neoliberalorama crumbling before there eyes in the newspapers to confirm things for them a number of times still. There are still those who believe the corpse of western world capitalism can be resurrected. They're in for a shock I'm afraid.
The NDP has spent an enourmous amount of its time pointing out how this tax will hit the most economiclly vunerable in Ontario.
Yes, the NDP has gone all out to shoot down the HST from every angle. Fine, that's one approach. But they have been largely absent from a policy discussion about how to make the HST, as a consumption tax, more progressive through pursuing specific mitigating measures. Others progressives have chosen that path, instead of the all or nothing approach. Both are valid, and together show that this isn't necessarily a "you're either for it or against it" issue for progressives as has been suggested earlier in this thread.
You are still shuffling deck chairs. The HST is a tax package, that means the Ontario Treasury will have less, not more money. Period. If you are progressive you should be opposed to this tax package on principle.
I laud the attempts by some to mitigate the damage, but that is an approach of making sure the lifeboats are availabe, instead of trying to avoid the iceberg in the first place, something despite your pretence the NDP has in fact also done, but it does not change the fact that this is a bad tax, poorly designed, that will hit the most vulnerable the hardest, both in terms of individuals and business sectors, and at the end of it all leaves less money to put towards the things we all agree need doing.
How opposing this tax package could be seen as anything other than responsible political action is totally beyond me.
Poverty activists groups attempting to lessen the harm of the tax does not equate with an endorsement of the tax. The very fact that the scarce resources of poverty activist groups are being committed to lobbying on lessening the impact of the tax, in and of itself, ought to speak volumes to the inherent unfairness of the tax. What is a progressive tax issue? Here's one:
The tax measures passed easily, with late returns showing a 54 percent to 46 percent ratio. Measure 66 raises taxes on households with taxable income above $250,000, and Measure 67 sets higher minimum taxes on corporations and increases the tax rate on upper-level profits.
You see? A tax increase on corporations and the rich.
Arguing that just because the HST is a tax progressives ought to support it is breathtakingly stupid.
In Denmark and Sweden - the social democracies that I think of NDP supporters I would think would believe we could learn a lot from - they have VATs of about 25% with very few exemptions. They are a very powerful revenue-raising tool. The revenue raised from them is then redistributed via transfers.
The rocks in Denmark and Sweden are also effective against tiger attacks. Tiger attacks in Denmark and Sweden: 0. I rest my case.
These flat taxes that some masterfull spin doctors like to call "sales tax" or, my favorite "Value Added Tax" (just what value do they add to your purchase?) have to be collected by our publicans at the retail and service level (nice of you small business people to do this government work gratis, much obliged) Then if the business decides to remit that amount to the government, that has to be monitored, policed and documented everywhich way from sunday, and surely to goodness that can't be done without somebody in the Premier's office consultant firm verifying it all, and then what ever few cents on the dollar remains from the original amount has to be shuffled around, through this avenue and that, back to the people who can't afford to pay it in the first place.
As a way to collect revenue, surely these flat taxes are a Rube Goldberg machine.
Value Added Taxes refers to the way the tax is assessed. Because businesses claim back taxes paid on the input costs, the tax effectively is only applied to the value added.
You also note a ton of administrative steps. Perhaps if we harmonized two similiar taxes that would be a step in the right direction?
Actually Tommy, you are dead wrong on the collection/administration of the GST/HST.
It is incredibly simple to admister, monitor and police. And it takes FAR fewer people to adminster than do the provincially adminstered sales taxes [not to mention that when you move to the HST, the GST bureaucracy already exists and you eliminate an entire provincial bureaucracy].
Counter-intuitively: the GST/HST is simpler because it applies to virtually everything, and it is applied to every single transaction... no decisions and monitoring whether it applies to this product, or this particular process. And since it applies to every single transaction.... businesses just net out what they owe and pay it. Less complications for collectors means less work has to go into monitoring at the government end.
But none of that has anything to do with whether or not HST is a good idea. I'm just correcting people away from gratuitous kicks because they don't like the HST.
And I beleive they are called "value added tax" to distinguish them from previous sales taxes.... that conceptually and administratively they apply to every single transaction. IE, you make auto parts and send them to GM, GST/HST is billed... even though obviously there is no retail sale. "Sales tax" traditionaly applied only to retail sales. Even though GST type taxes are a billing on every sale regardless of whether it is retail, and therefore could still be called a "sales tax".... they were distinguished by calling it a VAT.
The GST was aimed at removing the previous VATs, right? And the Liberals "Copped" out. : D
i'm not a tax expert, but generally it seems that, if taxes are to be talked about, wealth should be taxed.
let's talk about taxes on speculative financial transactions, on derivatives, credit default swaps, and all the risky financial products which crashed the economy and which continue to balloon and distort any sensible means of making policy decisions.
Taxing risky financial transactions will, aside from providing much needed money for social programs, also be a first step towards proper accounting: The games of financiers will have to come out of their private woodwork. We can send out a decree that all the world shall be taxed, progressively though. Make sure the bankers put all the chips on the table. Tax them accordingly.
Of course do all the other necessary restrictions on risky trading, break-up of corporate/investment houses, use the Bank of Canada to fund directly public infrastructure and public services, and use taxes on wealth to support those who have suffered from the deregulation of finance and irresponsibility of policy makers.
Absolutely.
I agree. The system needs to be multi-faceted.
i'm trying to say that;
a) the HST is lousy, as a consumption tax, as a burden on Indigenous people, on low income people, and on middle income people,
b) its incorrect to assume that residents are ignorant and don't know the difference between taxes for them and taxes for wealthy people or corporate banks,
c) the usual argument for refraining from taxing corporations has been that they will pack their bags and leave for Mexico or China if we do so,
d) talk about corporate taxation needs to be combined with buy-Canadian policies, increase in public infrastructure and public services using public funds that can't be offshored, changing trade deals to support such, along with financial reform, so that we aren't continually at the mercy of threats,
while at the same time
e) taxing speculative finance as noted previously.
The problem with Bill 218 (not "the HST" per se) is about revenue - the corporate and income tax cuts attached to it results in less revenue. There is of course the issue of unfairness about corporate tax breaks. Nobody here is disputing those tax cuts are wrong.
But the anti-HST campaign primarily focuses on the fact that there are fewer exemptions than before, which nicely dovetails the "Dalton's Tax on Everything"/DST campaign run by the Hudak Tories. The outrage about taxing cable, coffee, condo fees and Christmas trees is a sideshow at best and fueling a tax revolt at worst.
Harmonizing the tax in and of itself is not a problem. It should have as few exemptions as possible to maximize its revenue-raising potential.
Better to reverse Harper's GST tax cut and increase transfers to low-income households.
While progressivity does matter (and I've argued for increasing income taxes on the wealthy and business taxes), if you examine social welfare indicators comparatively the % of GDP coming from taxation matters more than the progressvity of the tax code. For instance the US relies much more on progressive taxation than Sweden does in relative if not absolute terms.
Actually Tommy, you are dead wrong on the collection/administration of the GST/HST.
I will admit to being wrong often, but not often dead wrong. When flat taxes are used to redistribute wealth, or taken from people and then rebated, then, by god, that's a Rube Goldberg approach to taxation if there ever was one. And, I'd dispute that sales taxes are simply charged and then remitted to government as efficiently and simply as you say, Ken. There's been cases of PST fraud going back years, where electronic devices have been used to hide sales, and the tax pocketed by the retailer.
http://www.taxes.ca/blog/archives/tax_fraud/index.php
Taxation isn't complicated. You make "x" you pay "y". Anything more complicated than that is for the purposes of hiding something.
And provincial sales taxes when compared to GST/HST have more opportunities for fraud, because of the complexities of when it does and does not apply.
So, the simpler the better then, I see we agree.
Actually Ken that is hugely over-stated. The reality is that a lot of this taxation, regardless of the system, is done on the honour system. It is neither more or less difficult to defraud whether it is pst, or HST, or gst.
Actually, I oversimplified rather than overstated.
GST/HST is very easy to bilk- but you are pretty certain to be caught for anything but pocket change. PST systems take more work to bilk. But their complexities offer a lot of cover for potential fraudsters. The complexities are much greater than what the consumer sees, or even a pure retailer. If you are a manufacturer, no matter what size, what applies where makes your head spin... and you can spend hours corresponding with bureaucrats over how the minutae applies to case X and Y.
I have no idea how much people try to bilk PST systems on some kind of modest or large scale, let alone how successful they are at it and getting away with it... but I know there is at least a perception it is possible. The only people who would try to bilk GST/HST are on the same order as someone writing a lot of bad checks: you can get some quick cash that way, but you will be caught.
From the administrative perspective, and I really mean only from that perspective, the beauty of the GST/HST is that it is structured in a way that it can largely run on the honour system. Which makes it easy to monitor: you do get contacted and politely questioned if your reporting and remitting kicks out anomalays. Income taxes and PSTs are both more difficult to administer and require substantially broader and more aggressive auditing.
Long thread.