Lewenza to NDP: anti-HST only benefits right wing

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.

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.

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.

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 _______]

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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."

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'.

 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.

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. 

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.

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.

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);

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 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 u [82]s," 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.

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.

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.

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:

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.