Is the NDP afraid of the "T" word (taxation)?

Another point-- look at families. Families live in houses-- pay a lot in utilities compared to those who live in apartments. For the amount they earn-- they have more fixed costs on necessities.

No worries this HST is just as progressive as the last tax this Ontario Liberal government brought in-- the health tax. And it is being brought in just as honestly -- perhaps we can call this the Goods and services levy? Thanks Mr. Dalton no-its-not-a-tax-its-a-levy McGuinty!

http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/news/local/article/9631--gst-and-...

"...And while there will be some continuing exemptions to keep Ontario's taxman out of your pocket, you'll still wind up paying more than you did before for many things you currently buy now.

The government will be softening the blow a bit by sending out three cheques totaling $1,000 to families earning less than $160,000 a year.

If you're single and make $80,000 or less, you'll get just $300.

The first cheque will come in June 2010, the second before Christmas of the same year and the final payment will arrive in June 2011.

But chances are neither amount will cover all of the added expenses."

That's right-- up to $1000 but only $300 tops if you earn less than $80,000

Now the middle group who earn too much for a property tax credit and too little to get much of this money-- they get screwed.

Now, for example-- think of the cost of housing in Ottawa. My family has an income of about $60k -- that is for 5 people. We make too much for a regular credit and too little to max out on the transition credits. We pay about $200 per month on heat and hydro (we can't afford a home in Ottawa so we rent and can only afford to rent a piece of shit townhouse that has non-thermo windows). We pay another $150 on insurance and then there is rent. Yeah, I should not complain I make way, way, way more than many who are going to get screwed but housing and utilities for my family costs me half my income as it is. then there is transportation-- and I don't drive a car made in the alst ten years either. So gee- $300 in transitional credits-- thanks. And I am far to rich to get any of the other credits. But I am not complaining too much about myself-- I think the people earning under $20,000 are getting it much worse and all these credits won't add up to enough. Again, I say-- do the math. This is a tax credit designed for the folks who do not do the math-- those people see the credit and don't see the bill.

Let's look at the real purpose of consumption taxes and why they are so popular --for governments-- nobody knows how much they pay. Governments get to take from anybody no matter how poor and have no political accountibility for the actual amount paid. You know how much you paid in income taxes last year -- but what did you pay on the GST?

Sorry I can't follow your logic at all.

I was making two different arguments--one was that this was a tax on labour and an architect is as much a labourer as a hairdresser and both are Canadians and both can be worried about the effect of an increase on the cost of their services in a recession.

The argument of a lack of progressivity is that people will pay the same percentage across what they spend with a consumption tax (except for rebates and exception which are small). A progressive income tax system more than doubles the percentage you pay when you have the highest income compared to the lowest.

I also argues that those with more money are also more likely to have significant amounts not taxed because they are spent outside the country or is not taxed because they save it. Why should we tax people who need to spend all their money to allow those who can save to pay less? If you want more savings extend the RRSP limit.

I really don't understand you first point.  Are you saying that because of the tax people are going to take their accounting business outside the country?  They are going to do less accounting?  Or we should just feel bad for accountants having the tax added even if they are high income earners?

I understand that progressive means not just paying an equal %, but the rich paying more.  I just don't know what the numbers are.  I took a quick look at the new harmonization taxes in BC and it is not clear:

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)

In particular some areas of taxation like high value property tranfers (over $400K with a 5% further reduction for the next $100K) are directed particularly at the rich. (Reminds me of Glen Clark as Finance Minister and his taking away the home owners grant for high value property.) It is plausible to me to say that someone making $100K will be paying more than 20x someone making $10K (considering only the new harmonization taxes and credits). It is also plausible to me that they don't. That is why an actual analysis is critically important.

I didn't say that they are the only ones to use them, but rather that they use them to a disproportionate rate compared to lower income classes.

And I am not talking about the entire package, what we are talking about is the move to harmonize existing consumption taxes (which are regressive).  When you consider only the harmonization to me it is an open question mainly because of the high value services that are utilized disproportionately by the rich.  And I haven't said I believe it is one way or the other because I do not know.  Instead I asked if there is any data.  Apparently there is tar and feathers but no data.

yep!

Up the page are apparently two analysises of the Ontario HST saying that the harmonization is progressive (haven't read yet) as well as quote from a left wing think tank spokesman that the tax is progressive.  I have not said anywhere that the HST as an add-on is progressive or regressive, but obviously there is some doubt.  Glad that you can look at it and form judgements so easily.

Well I am looking at the BC version that has none of the add-ons that are in the Ontario package.  So for BC it is still fine to look at the HST add-ons as a stand alone proposal.  Now when I look at the list of categories what strikes out at me is that a lot of these items are what would be included if somebody took a stab at building a luxury tax.

Pogo, I don't actually follow you.

Here's a rundown.

- The GST and PST are both sales taxes and widely seen as regressive - especially when compared with income taxes.

- Under harmonization provinces will scrap their provincial sales taxes and "harmonize" with the GST. The GST is different from provincial sales taxes in two ways. (1) Businesses pay provincial sales taxes. They effectively don't pay GST. (2) There's a lot of items exempted from provincial sales taxes: hydro, home heating, haircuts, etc.

- Under "harmonization" consumers/people/youandme will LOSE these exemptions. We'll be paying sales tax on virtually everything. Businesses will GAIN because they will no longer have to pay provincial sales taxes. It's a massive tax CUT for business (estimates run as high as $6 billion in total) and a massive tax HIKE for people (estimates run as high as $7 billion).

- In Ontario, the McGuinty Government will be hiking the sales tax credit geared to low income people - so people like Olly and (I guess) Hugh Mackenzie think that makes this massive tax shift okay. It's worth noting that out of every dollar in new taxes people are paying about 10 cents will be invested in these sales tax credits. McGuinty will also be investing another 10 cents in an income tax cut.

- It's also worth noting that McGuinty plans to waste an additional $2.2 billion annually on corporate tax cuts - and as a result the provincial government will have LESS money despite a significant tax hike on consumers - about $2 billion a year less. Olly and his fellow travellers next task will - no doubt - involve making excuses for McGuinty when he freezes social assistance rates ("These are tough times - at least he's not making cuts!" When they're doing that, the rest of us should remember that they clapped when Dalton McGuinty gave away some $9 billion a year in tax cuts to business because there was a fucking sales tax credit buried in there.

ASIDE: If Ontario chose not to invest that $2.2 billion anually in corporate tax cuts they could increase ODSP rates by 2000 per cent.  

So, here's the quick summary.

- Sales taxes are regressive.

- The switch from the PST to the HST is more regressive because it raises taxes for people while cutting them for business.

- Even though you pay more there will be less money for social programs.

Sound good to you?

No measure is an island.

And who exactly as LTJ pointed out do you think overwhelmingly work in these 'luxury' service sectors - the uber-rich hairstylists?

I think trickle down in the states is based on shovelling some large share of the national income to the richest of the creme de la creme, and then they end up whining about paying the highest marginal tax rates in the western world. And it's mainly because the top ten percenters are the ones making all the money anyway. Trickle down poduces vast concentrations of wealth among the top three to five percent or so and puts the country into hawk with national debt up the wazoo. And that's the new neoliberalised banking and business model today: throw as many people into a debt hole as they can. Debt equals wealth is their new plan, and public debt is of the highest quality with regard to the new wealth creation model. Some say Harper is middle of the road Keynesian with taking on more debt in the middle of what is a western world debt crisis. Nothing could be further from the truth, because the name of the game today is public debt with tens of millions of co-signers as collateral now that the wheels have fallen off the neoliberalorama. It's like our stooges have admitted they no real plan and no way out of this mess, and so theyre going to mortgage Canada's future because they have no plan and no new ideas. 

Do you think carbon taxes would work to reduce CO2 emissions, Erik? Just curious.

And I am opposed to any and all tax increases by our two old line party fiscal Frankensteins. I don't for a minute believe that they would use the tax revs for good purposes.

Come on, Erik. We have more natural wealth than God in this Northern Puerto Rico, and our current stooges in Ottawa are going to charge-up another $170 BILLION on the public credit card. That's on top of the whopping national debt our two fiscal Frankenstein parties racked up between 1975 to 2000 when national debt soared from $37 billion to $580 billion. And you're concerned about the BC-NDP opposing a carbon tax that hasn't worked anywhere in the energy exporting world where tried to reduce CO2 emissions?  

And if I remember right, there were but two or three BC-NDP MLA's when Gordon Campbell's phony-majority dictatorial Liberals imposed the super-majority rule on the referendum. It was a similar story here with our own phony-baloney Liberals in Ontario and the referendum that turned out to be a farce. And I can say for sure that Howard Hampton was the only party leader to publicly endorse MMP, even though the parties were restricted from campaigning either way. Still trust Liberals?

I think carbon taxes are an election gimmick and nothing more. Canada contributes a whopping two percent of globak CO2. But our neighbors contribute ~22% of the total, and Canada is their largest supplier of fossil fuels and total energy. And the federal Liberals would rather talk slaps on wrists for corporate polluters as a diversion from the real issue, which is that party's very neoliberal trade deal with the US. The Liberals sold our environment to Exxon-Imperial and transnational energy companies, and so they needed to appear to want to tackle global warming without acknowledging that Canada's fossil fuel policies are dictated to us from corporate board rooms in America. And Campbell, the stooge, only wants to tax natural gas and reduce consumption of that precious resource so that energy companies can sell more to the states. Whether it was St Laurent Liberals of old giving control of Canadian natural gas to Americans with Diefenbaker's approval, or Chretien-Martin Liberals selling us down the Mississippi in modern times, Liberals are a party of political opportunists with dollar signs in their eyes at thoughts of pawning off what isnt their's. It's progress as far as they are concerned ie. progress for them, themselves, and anybody connected to them.

Pogo wrote:

Sunday Hat I undersand GST - regressive, PST - regressive and a combined form is regressive in its totallity.  What I am looking at is the subset of the additional taxes that come from adding services and removing exemptions (as it applies to BC).  If you look up I have a list that I took off a protest website.  A lot of these categories are used by rich at a geometrically higher level and they are big dollars.  Property sales tax for example applies to properties over $400k with a reduced amount for the next $100k.  So people selling homes over $500K are going to be paying big taxes.  To me that measure on its own is progressive for a bunch of reasons.

But, in BC, the new taxes will also extend bicycles, non-prescription medicines, home care, internet, and a host of other items that the working poor, middle-class and all of us use every day.

Furthermore, all of the money from these new taxes will be handed over to business as tax cuts - which I think you would agree is not progressive at all.

So, I guess the question I ask you is: do you support a new tax that will kick the shit out of the working poor because it will also ding some people selling expensive homes?

ETA: And leave the government with less money.

I have nothing more to add, as we have all presented our views - in a very thoughtful way most of the time.  I just wanted to see how long the thread could get before the Mods notice  This being the weekend and I am sure they are busy doing other things I think we should shoot for 200!

Well, this isn't the longest thread ever, but it's pretty close!  Closing this - feel free to continue in a new one.