Fight HST rallies at over a dozen locations in BC

See Also: Fight Hst

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/

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?

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?

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.

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.

Read sean's postings in this thread

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-afraid-t-word-taxation

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.

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.

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)

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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 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?

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

Revenue - Savings = consumption

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.

.

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

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.