Fight HST rallies at over a dozen locations in BC

95 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mean Moe
Fight HST rallies at over a dozen locations in BC

This is grassroots at its best.

 

100 Mile House organizer: Janet Derepentigny
EMAIL: [email protected]
Location: 100 Miler Gear Garage (across from Tim Hortons)

Kamloops organizer: Chad Moat
EMAIL: [email protected]
LOCATION: Spirit Square

Kelowna Organizer: Matthew Reed
EMAIL: [email protected]
LOCATION: The Sails, walk to First United Church
NOTE: Time is 12:30PM for this event.

Nanaimo Organizer - Janet Irvine
EMAIL: [email protected]
LOCATION: Maffeo-Sutton Park, Lions Pavilion
NOTE: Time is 1:00PM for this event.

Oliver organizer - Paul McCavour
EMAIL: [email protected]
LOCATION: Highway 97 near Super Valu
NOTE: This rally begins at 3:00 p.m.

Osoyoos organizer: Paul McCavour
EMAIL: [email protected]
LOCATION: junction of Highway 3 and 97

Penticton organizer: Wendy Dion
EMAIL: [email protected]
LOCATION: The front of MLA Bill Barisoff's office (Main Street)

Prince George organizer: Mike Summers
EMAIL: [email protected]
LOCATION: Pat Bell, MLA office - Central

Quesnel organizer: Martin Eastman
EMAIL: [email protected]
LOCATION: Lebourdais Park
NOTE: This rally begins at 1:00 p.m.

Revelstoke organizer: Vanessa Smith
EMAIL: [email protected]
LOCATION: Grizzly Book & Serendipity Shop

Vancouver organizer: Chris Delaney
EMAIL: [email protected]
LOCATION: Canada Place

Vernon organizer: Miles Lehn
EMAIL: [email protected]
LOCATION: Courthouse Steps

Victoria organizer: Brad Slade
EMAIL: [email protected]
LOCATION: Rear lawn of the Legislature.

Williams Lake organizer: Dave Ligertwood
EMAIL: [email protected]
LOCATION: Boitanio Park, at the Stage

 

With the BIG ONE @ Canada Place in Vancouver. All to coincide with each other.

 

Spectrum Spectrum's picture

What day?

Mean Moe

Saturday Sept 19 at noon.

Spectrum Spectrum's picture

See Also: Fight Hst

madmax

Tossing out a Few Federal CPC MPs would help.  The Feds are the puppeteers behind the Province.

Take away the 1.6 billion that the CPC are greasing the Liberals with, and this tax wouldn't be happening.

remind remind's picture

Quote:
Aside from the standard "it will create jobs" bullshit, it raises another small question: The Campbell corporate government has been in power since 2001. How is it that every overture from the feds to implement HST was dismissed by this mob until now? If it's the most effective form of consumer taxation, as Hansen describes it, why did it take eight full years to buy into the idea? Were they just too stupid to realize how cool a system it was?

So, they're either very dumb or they're lying. Either way, they shouldn't be allowed to represent anybody.

The kicker however is the continuing line that Hansen and Campbell had not formulated a plan to implement the HST before the last provincial election (May 2009). By their account, the idea was latched onto after they retook government. (Which would make it a hastily adopted plan without public consultation.)

So, along comes the Victoria Times-Colonist asking for information. They wanted to see the government correspondence related to the HST from January to September 2009. Surprise!

The Times Colonist, like dozens of other media outlets, is requesting the documents to see whether the Liberal government is telling the truth when it says it never considered implementing the HST before the May election. It introduced the tax less than two months after winning a new majority government.

Diligent little devils down there on Douglas Street and what did they get?

A Freedom of Information Request by the Times Colonist for government records about the HST came back with a hefty fee estimate this week: $3,500.

$3,500 for photocopying and vetting?! Yet Hansen says they weren't even considering it before the middle of this summer.
That's a lot of correspondence that piled up in a few weeks.

http://thegallopingbeaver.blogspot.com/

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

[url=http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/2009/09/5000-rally-in-vancouver-against... people rallied against HST[/url] in Vancouver last Saturday.

Pogo Pogo's picture

Is there any analysis of how regressive the harmonization is - how it affects different tax brackets.  I wonder because the base tax is not changing for most goods, and the bulk of the extra tax will be in the taxation of services (and some exempted goods) that were not taxed under the existing PST.  Are not services used disproportionately by higher income groups?

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

How about this, Pogo?

[url=http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2009/09/22/HSTMyths/]Exposing HST Myths[/url]

remind remind's picture

Quote:
That means the HST will cost most British Columbians hundreds if not thousands of extra dollars in tax.

And despite paying those extra taxes, not one thin dime from the HST will go to improve health care or education or social programs. Instead it all goes to business tax credits.

Was watching a report that showed  this tax would add a million extra dollars to the Vancouver School Board's budget.

So...we have Drs being squeezed through this, as well as dentists, School Boards, Health Boards, municipal governments, universities and collages, small businesses,  farmers/ranchers, NPO's and NGO's, and of course people, unless you are a multi-millionaire.

And all those avenues it negatively affects, have an  further negative effect on the poor and indeed the middle class. The rich and corporations not so much.

As for the service portion of it, it is the government taxing people's labour, thus the person giving said service is denoted as being a slave of the state, that the state can tax. And said service provision person being a base for state taxes, also has to pay taxes to the state upon their own labour and indeed their income from said labour, that the state, at 2 levels now, taxes.

So, can someone tell me how this is fair and equitable?

What are the future implications of this?

 

 

Pogo Pogo's picture

M. Spector wrote:

How about this, Pogo?

[url=http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2009/09/22/HSTMyths/]Exposing HST Myths[/url]

This doesn't tell whether the additional harmonization costs are progressive or regressive.  Just they they add up to x and it is new and taxes are bad.

Pogo Pogo's picture

Just looking at the list of items affected I am not sure.

Restaurants - I would say that the for the lowest quintile restaurant expenditures are minimal.  While in the next 4 quintiles they rise, as a % of income it would obviously fall. 

Entertainment - I don't really know.  You can spend an awful lot on entertainment and probably it is minimal for the bottom (2?) quintiles.

School Supplies - obviously regressive

Household bills - obviously regressive

Travel - I think this is probably progressive (airline fairs and travel agency charges)

Real Estate - There is a floor of $400,000 and a further rebate of up to $20,000 which makes this progressive in my books

Services - The list is long and some are regressive (appliance repair) and some are probably progressive (accounting, architechture)

The question becomes is the sum progressive or regressive.  Does the amount top quintile households pay to flip realestate as a % of their income come to more or less of the amount the bottom quintile pays for school books as a % of their inocme (after factoring in any HST rebates)?  To me it is not an obvious answer but needs to have the numbers crunched.

remind remind's picture

Only to those unwilling to see

Pogo Pogo's picture

In addition if the tax is more efficient and requires less labour to implement that has to be accounted to also.  If 100 tax workers could be traded for 100 social workers that is also a good thing.

remind remind's picture

Would never happen in reality, so let's deal in it, as opposed to "ifs".

All taxes on services is regressive, at best.

Mean Moe

It's regressive for the simple fact that low and middle income earners spend a greater percentage of their income on consumption of necessary items.   A VAT/GST/HST will add to these costs.

Pogo Pogo's picture

There seems to be a mantra that taxes on goods and  services must necessarily be regressive.  That is just not the case.  There are several factors that weigh in.

1) The range of services.  If we taxed pet manicures would that be regressive?

2) If there are some categories that are progressive in their taxation (ariline tickets, architect fees) and others that are not, then the relative weight of the revenue from each source is important.  Yes appliance repairs are likely regressive, but if the average low income family spends $100 every 2-3 years, it probably doesn't have the impact that sales of high value property will have.

3) What additional credits are there and how effective are they.  This has two issues.  First does it drop the effective amount of tax paid in the lower two quintiles to make the tax progressive. Secondly, how many people in the bottom quintiles are excluded from the provisions and what is done to accomodate this (ie people not paying taxes as their income is minimal).

As for the efficiency.  It should make no difference whether Gordon Campbell is using the money wisely or not.  To follow this line is to fall into the right wing trap of don't give government any money because they won't use it wisely.  If a tax policy is efficient and increases government revenue, it needs to be considered.

remind remind's picture
Pogo Pogo's picture

I read his post and he didn't deal with the basic issue, are the poor paying a bigger share or a smaller share.  Instead we have the NDP jumping on stages with Vanderzalm and joining the fight against big government.

I don't favour consumption taxes at the source, my preference would be one based on income reporting.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Pogo wrote:

I don't favour consumption taxes at the source, my preference would be one based on income reporting.

If you favour progressive income taxes over consumption taxes, why do you reject the "mantra" that says consumption taxes are regressive?

Your position seems very self-contradictory to me.

remind remind's picture

Education will be cutback, as will healthcare and social services provided by NGO's and NPO's, less Drs will be going into family practises,  this will effect every weft and wane, in the social safety net and public service, fabric in BC.

It is just not unfair to the poor, it is going to impact the middle classes, just as much.

 

Pogo Pogo's picture

M. Spector wrote:

Pogo wrote:

I don't favour consumption taxes at the source, my preference would be one based on income reporting.

If you favour progressive income taxes over consumption taxes, why do you reject the "mantra" that says consumption taxes are regressive?

Your position seems very self-contradictory to me.

I didn't say income tax, but rather income reporting.  For me the ideal base tax would be a consumption tax based on income minus savings and a deduction for basic consumption.  This would be done by looking at your T4 and subtracting a modified RRSP amount.  No limit on the RRSP contribution, but in return there would be a regular tax on RRSP holdings.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Pogo wrote:

1) The range of services.  If we taxed pet manicures would that be regressive?

It would if it has a disproportionate impact on lower-income people. And how could it not if it's not geared to income, but only to consumption?

The vast majority of people who pay for pet manicures are working-class people anyway. I don't know if you have a pet dog or cat, but their nails have to be clipped or otherwise trimmed, regardless of the income bracket of their owners.

Quote:
2) If there are some categories that are progressive in their taxation (ariline tickets, architect fees) and others that are not, then the relative weight of the revenue from each source is important.  Yes appliance repairs are likely regressive, but if the average low income family spends $100 every 2-3 years, it probably doesn't have the impact that sales of high value property will have.

Taxing airline tickets is not progressive. It's just making air travel more expensive for everybody and putting it out of the financial reach of even more lower-income people than before. Most people buying airline tickets are not rich; for the ones who are rich, the tax is the same and thus a lower percentage of their income/wealth.

 

Pogo Pogo's picture

I have a cat and I trim the nails myself.  Can't afford the manicure.  I live in a 70 unit housing co-op and I can count easily the plane trips taken in the last year.  However we are in a very rich neighborhood and when I go to PAC meetings the trips goes up geometictrically. 

Of course this is just anecdotal.  That is why the real numbers are essential to understanding this.  (I am still on the fence)

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

You can't afford to pay for a cat manicure. And by taxing cat manicures you will help to ensure that they become unaffordable for even more people. There's nothing progressive about that.

The "real numbers" you are seeking are no help in making consumption taxes progressive. Even if you could isolate certain goods and services that are [b]predominantly[/b] purchased by the rich and slap consumption taxes on them, you would still be taxing disproportionately the minority of non-rich people who also purchase them. You would also be helping to make those goods and services even more the exclusive preserve of the rich than they are already. That's not very egalitarian! 

If your object is to tax rich people, the only sensible, fair, and efficient way to do it is through the progressive income tax system, rather than by trying to guess what the rich are going to buy next.

Pogo Pogo's picture

Income tax is okay but it does nothing about accumulated wealth and the many unmeasureable/taxable benefits that flow from wealth.

Like I said above I think the most desireable tax would be a consumption tax tied to income and total expenditures with a progressive level.  However we are not talking about that, we are discussing whether in BC the Harmonized sales tax is generally progressive or generally regressive.

As for the tax being a limiting factor in low income people buying luxury goods that is really red herring.  I hear it every year from developers who blame the development cost charges as being the only reason why housing is out of reach of the average family, I hear it from oil companies who take pains to indicate that taxes not profits are the cause of high gas prices.  I heard it back when Glen Clark brought in his first budget as Finance Minister and eliminated the homeowners grant for high value homes and we found that most high value homes were owned by widows on a pension.  The rich will always find somebody to hide behind.

Mean Moe

If I recall correctly the UK has a tiered VAT. It ranges from 5-25%, or it did at the time.  On household items and small purchases you paid the 5% but on cars you paid the 25% and items like TVs were 15%.  Is that what you mean?

 

Pogo Pogo's picture

No, I am thinking of a consumption tax that is administered in much the same way as the income tax system.  Consumption is measured by subtracting savings from income with a deduction for basic savings.  Tax rates can be progressive just as with income tax as well as a periodic wealth tax on savings.  People who spend the most would pay the most.  People who spend the least pay the least.  A number of advantages:

  • It rewards thrift
  • It rewards reducing consumption levels
  • It rewards investment over consumption

 

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

What nonsense!

Do you not see how regressive this would be? The rich would be able to shelter most of their income from your stupid consumption tax, while the poor and middle classes, who can't afford to sock money away into savings and investments, pay consumption tax on all their income, (because they spend all of it on consumables)!

Not to mention the reactionary idea that "investment" is something that is to be rewarded by tax breaks.

Pogo Pogo's picture

I guess when given a choice between math and sophistry, you chose sophistry.  It is not like wealth is taxed in the current system, where I said that a periodic wealth tax is a basic element.  That said the tax is as progressive as you choose it.  The first level being those that don't pay any tax because they consume so little and the other levels of taxation can be set at whatever progressive rates we want. 

We already reward investment in the current system, just that it is only the very rich who are currently served by the current system.

Pogo Pogo's picture

Low income/expenditure houselholds would pay no tax (so would moderate income-low expenditure households).

remind remind's picture

Mulcair was in Vancouver yesterday speaking about the HST, and he made Harper wear it.

madmax

 

It doesn't appear to me, that people fully understand the terms Progressive and Regressive when applied as a tax.

 

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/regressivetax.asp

 

 

http://www.psnw.com/~bashford/taxation.html
An example of why sales tax is regressive.  

If progressive taxes soak the rich, and regressive taxes soak the poor, why do we almost never hear the term, "soak the poor"?   Perhaps that is a "loaded" question?

Let's imagine two frugal traveling salesmen.   They each have to buy a new car every four years to (say) keep up appearances, and they need reliable transportation.
(One guy makes 20K, the other 300K)
Run the numbers on a the RATE of total income each pays on on 5% sales tax.  

Poor Boy buys a $20,000 car pays $1000 or 5.0% of his income.
Rich Boy buys a $60,000 car pays $3000 or 1.0% of his income.

Poor Boy has 5 times the tax bite, or rate of tax on a car.   Rich Boy hardly feels sales taxes.  

Then run the numbers on a $30 pair of Levis, and the tax rate discrepancy triples.  
Sales tax is NOT a flat tax.

Pogo Pogo's picture

I don't think it an understanding of progressive/regressive that is the problem.  It is what it is measured against.  A progressive consumption tax would be measured against consumption - what you spend on consumption.

Looking at your model and assume the country has only two citizens one making $20K and the other making $300K.  Lets say the taxpayer making $20K pays $1K (5%) in tax based on 10% of any income over $10K and the other taxpayer pays $60K (20%) based a progessive increase in rates.  This can be duplicated in a consumption model !

Instead of saying that the first $10K of income is free, you say the first 10K of consumption is free.  You can still have progressive rates but it is based on consumption and it should be far more punishing - ie high consumption taxpayers should shoulder even more of the burden.  For the second taxpayer lets say there are five levels: $0-10K = 0%, $10-20K= 10%, $20K-50K= 20%, $50K-100K = 50%, >100K=80%.  Now the 80% top rate looks really high, but remember that we are talking about consumption not income and a taxpayer spending over $100K per year on consumption is living a very luxurious life.  (The number are just pulled from the air so don't attack the system because x rate has a dumb number).  Now the taxpayer earning $300K has a choice.  He can look at those big checks coming in and live a $20K frugal life (not likely but possible), but he knows that everything he spends during the year will result in a PROGRESSIVELY higher tax bill.

Of course the savings cannot be ignored.  If through incredible self control the $300K earning is able to live a $20K lifestyle then he will pay minimal tax.  But he will still have the non-monetary benefits of ownership (the proceeds of ownership are still measured for tax purposes).  This is also true in the current income tax model, where wealth is generally ignored except where it impacts annual income.  To account for this there should be a periodic wealth/capital tax that would ensure that wealth is also contributing its share.

 

Pogo Pogo's picture

And going back to the HST issue.  Consider the property tax question.  You have to sell a property over $500K to be eligible, which eliminates most low income households.  So households earning $20K are likely to pay $0 (0%) while households making $300K are perhaps selling a house for $500K every 10 years (assuming the 400K is not a deduction but just an eligibility criteria) and would average $2.4 K per year in property taxes (.8%).   Clearly the property tax component is going to be progressive, the question is: Is the package (the BC HST add-ons) progressive?  I looked around the net for a breakdown with no luck, however I did find that it is estimated that real estate is estimated to contribute between 25 and 30% of the new revenue.  The question I continue to ask is what is the aggregate amount of tax per income bracket and is it progressive or regressive (are higher income levels paying significantly more tax as a % of income).

kropotkin1951

In the Lower Mainland, while it is hard to believe, a $500,000 is near the bottom of the market place not the top. For that you might get a condo in a decent part of town or a really rundown single family home in a not so nice neighbourhood.  People who bought there homes years ago when it was affordable are now going to be gouged when they retire. There are many people here who are house rich with a fairly low income because they bought in the 70's and 80's.  It is those people who will pay the most dearly when it is time to sell their homes.

Pogo Pogo's picture

I remember this argument way back when Glen Clark took away the homeowner grant from people with homes over $300K and so called progressives leaped to the defense of high value homeowners. 

First, most high value homes are owned by rich people.  Yes there are some people who have real estate value while living on moderate income, but they A) are in the lower range of property values over $500K and B) are in a minority of the high value property owners.

Second, remember that your home is the biggest source of wealth in Canada that is excluded from the tax system.  If you doubled your wealth by owning shares in Monsanto you would expect that income to be taxed.  If you double your income on your house that is not taxed.  Not only that but living in a high value house is a benefit in itself that is also untaxed.  Consider two moderate income households one that owned a home and the other that rented a home and invested the difference.  Who pays the most tax.  It is not progressive by either definition of the word to come to the defense of the profits held in real estate.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Pogo wrote:

I looked around the net for a breakdown with no luck, however I did find that it is estimated that real estate is estimated to contribute between 25 and 30% of the new revenue.  The question I continue to ask is what is the aggregate amount of tax per income bracket and is it progressive or regressive (are higher income levels paying significantly more tax as a % of income).

The reason you can't find those figures is that they don't exist, other than as somebody's guess. Nobody collects statistics correlating consumption taxation with income levels because consumption taxes are levied totally independent of income levels. Consumption taxes are blind to the income levels of the consumer. [i]That's why consumption taxes are said to be regressive.[/i]

You are trying to make rich and poor people conform to some stereotypes of their consumption patterns that you carry around in your head. To you, anybody who consumes goods and services that you either cannot afford or are unwilling to purchase, are rich people who should be heavily taxed on those purchases. This is your idea of making consumption taxes "progressive."

Thus, according to you, anybody who pays to have their dog's nails clipped by a professional groomer rather than trying to do it themselves and causing unnecessary pain and aggravation to their pet, is rich and should be taxed up the wazoo. Likewise anybody who flies in airplanes should be taxed even more than they already are on the ticket price, because according to you flying is for rich people, not us lowly workers. That's your idea of progressive taxation.

Never mind that airline tickets purchased by rich corporations for business travel are deductible as a business expense (unlike for us lowly workers), and that includes any taxes added on top. Indeed the HST system is lauded by the Harpocons for its ability to allow businesses to recoup their consumption tax expenditures by setting them off against the consumption taxes they collect from their customers. So only us lowly workers flying away for our annual two weeks in Cuba will get dinged for your "luxury tax". How progressive is that?

madmax

Pogo wrote:
I don't think it an understanding of progressive/regressive that is the problem.  It is what it is measured against.  A progressive consumption tax would be measured against consumption - what you spend on consumption.

The HST is regressive regardless of your positive thoughts of how it should be.  People need to fight this, as it is a bottom feeder tax.

 

remind remind's picture

Ya... positive thoughts about it do little, to make it progressive, when by its very nature it is other..

Mean Moe

Pogo wrote:

I don't think it an understanding of progressive/regressive that is the problem.  It is what it is measured against.  A progressive consumption tax would be measured against consumption - what you spend on consumption.

Looking at your model and assume the country has only two citizens one making $20K and the other making $300K.  Lets say the taxpayer making $20K pays $1K (5%) in tax based on 10% of any income over $10K and the other taxpayer pays $60K (20%) based a progessive increase in rates.  This can be duplicated in a consumption model !

Instead of saying that the first $10K of income is free, you say the first 10K of consumption is free.  You can still have progressive rates but it is based on consumption and it should be far more punishing - ie high consumption taxpayers should shoulder even more of the burden.  For the second taxpayer lets say there are five levels: $0-10K = 0%, $10-20K= 10%, $20K-50K= 20%, $50K-100K = 50%, >100K=80%.  Now the 80% top rate looks really high, but remember that we are talking about consumption not income and a taxpayer spending over $100K per year on consumption is living a very luxurious life.  (The number are just pulled from the air so don't attack the system because x rate has a dumb number).  Now the taxpayer earning $300K has a choice.  He can look at those big checks coming in and live a $20K frugal life (not likely but possible), but he knows that everything he spends during the year will result in a PROGRESSIVELY higher tax bill.

Of course the savings cannot be ignored.  If through incredible self control the $300K earning is able to live a $20K lifestyle then he will pay minimal tax.  But he will still have the non-monetary benefits of ownership (the proceeds of ownership are still measured for tax purposes).  This is also true in the current income tax model, where wealth is generally ignored except where it impacts annual income.  To account for this there should be a periodic wealth/capital tax that would ensure that wealth is also contributing its share.

 

So everyone keeps all their receipts for taxes at the end of the year?

The amount of human resources needed to make this system work would eat away at any revenue gains and would likely result in a loss of revenue.  The army of accountants needed to process a year of recepts for millions of filers is so enormous, that itself makes this unworkable.

 

Pogo Pogo's picture

Revenue - Savings = consumption

RANGER
JKR

M. Spector wrote:

Consumption taxes are blind to the income levels of the consumer. [i]That's why consumption taxes are said to be regressive.[/i]

 

Sales tax credits can be used to overcome this "blindness." The effective use of tax credits can be used to make consumption taxes progressive. If their is political will, consumption taxes can be made to be progressive.

This pro-Ontario-hst diagram seems to indicate that the HST in Ontario, will benefit low income earners.

Impact of HST in Ontario

Single parent, income $25,000 - benefit of $570 per year
Single parent, welfare - benefit of $675 per year

Single, income $30,000 - benefit of $330 per year
Single, income $100,000 -cost of $30 per year

When the NDP takes power in 2013, they could make the HST progressive by increasing tax credits to lower incomes.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Advocates of consumption taxes always trot out this line about making consumption taxes progressive by giving tax credits to lower-income people. It's horseshit.

1. You're taxing people on the basis of their [b]consumption[/b], and giving credits on the basis of their [b]income[/b]. What could be a clearer indication of the disconnection, and the consequent opportunity for introducing unfairness?

2. Why use a regressive tax if your goal is to tax progressively? Slapping income-related tax credits onto a consumption tax to make it vaguely resemble progressivity is strongly reminiscent of the [url=http://www.humorlinks.com/python/sketches/APetShopSomewhereNearMeltonMow... Python sketch[/url] about doing a "parrot job" on a terrier.

3. In the Toronto Star graphic you linked to, it's clear that the tax credits are only temporary, and their progressive effect declines rapidly over time, whereas the HST is forever.

4. Poor people have to come up with the money to pay the tax at point of purchase. It's no consolation for the government to say "we'll reimburse you later."

5. Many people don't make enough money to have taxable income and do not file tax returns. How will they be compensated?

6. Why tax people on an unfair basis and then employ thousands of other people to give some of it back to the people they think may have been taxed unfairly? Why do we need to find alternatives to the income tax?

janfromthebruce

M. Spector wrote:

Advocates of consumption taxes always trot out this line about making consumption taxes progressive by giving tax credits to lower-income people. It's horseshit.

1. You're taxing people on the basis of their [b]consumption[/b], and giving credits on the basis of their [b]income[/b]. What could be a clearer indication of the disconnection, and the consequent opportunity for introducing unfairness?

2. Why use a regressive tax if your goal is to tax progressively? Slapping income-related tax credits onto a consumption tax to make it vaguely resemble progressivity is strongly reminiscent of the [url=http://www.humorlinks.com/python/sketches/APetShopSomewhereNearMeltonMow... Python sketch[/url] about doing a "parrot job" on a terrier.

3. In the Toronto Star graphic you linked to, it's clear that the tax credits are only temporary, and their progressive effect declines rapidly over time, whereas the HST is forever.

4. Poor people have to come up with the money to pay the tax at point of purchase. It's no consolation for the government to say "we'll reimburse you later."

5. Many people don't make enough money to have taxable income and do not file tax returns. How will they be compensated?

6. Why tax people on an unfair basis and then employ thousands of other people to give some of it back to the people they think may have been taxed unfairly? Why do we need to find alternatives to the income tax?

3. Get them to buy in now and pay later (reminds me of the GST sellout - temporary measure until the deficit is slayed - years later it's like a old family friend.

4. That's correct - if they can't afford it, they can't afford it - it's like when poor people are told to buy in bulk because it's cheaper in the long-run (at those lovely courses run by middle class SWers (I'm one so I am doing some self-bashing here) for welfare recepiants because they are "poor money managers". (actually they are the best as they really know how to live on nothing and stretch a buck but I digress). Anyway, they can't afford to buy in bulk because they just don't have the room to save and live.

5. That's correct - they don't and thus it's a smoke screen

6. That's always funny and truthful - it's make work projects "for the comfortable" on the backs of the "very uncomfortable". Look we are going to give you back some token money who cares if you can't get your money back because you didn't pay income tax - smoke screen works for us and now I got a great paying job with security - thank you.

 

remind remind's picture

5. They do in BC, because that is how  they are alloted money for their child tax credit, GST rebate and the BC carbon tax credit. No income tax return filed, showing no income, no government cheques coming back to you.

RANGER

A great tool folks can use for a ballpark on what this may personally cost:

 

http://nationalcitizens.ca/hst.pl?rm=show_hst_reg_form

no1important

Sadly no one seems to care much anymore about this. Most of the anger has faded away like with the carbon tax, BC Rail and anything else Campbell has done.

 

The big media in BC did their part to to make this a non issue and portray it better than it is.

RANGER

The thing is generally people don't pay attention until they've been hit in the face with something,(and it's too late) I can say as one of the 16 regional organizers for "Fight HST" in B.C. there is quite a bit of organising going on at the moment, I have a town hall tommorrow in my riding and many others are being organised, there is a good strategy and hopefully we can harness the anger that so many have over this tax, the actuall petition drive is March, April and May of next year.

RANGER

Pages