Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Novabonker]

Some more common sense.....


http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2011/07/25/NixHST/



As the HST referendum counts down to its final hours, there are at least four good reasons why you should vote Yes to kill the tax:

1. Clearly not revenue neutral. Sold as revenue neutral, the 2010-11 Public Accounts released last Monday show this is clearly untrue. The HST was in place for eight of the 12 months covered. During that time, the HST raised $392 million more than projected. Under the HST's input tax credit system, business pays no tax. So where did this tax increase come from? British Columbian consumers, of course.

2. Too blunt an instrument. An "across the board" tax is unresponsive on a policy level. A flexible tax policy is an important tool of economic policy. Our provincial government needs to play all the keys of the policy piano if we are to have healthy and vibrant communities. A flat sales tax on all products and services does not allow government to pick and choose what products will be tax exempt, removing an important instrument from the economic and social policy stimulation toolbox.

3. Gets in the way of cutting other taxes. But it gets worse. In trying to sell the HST to a skeptical public, Victoria has promised a two per cent reduction by 2014. How will the provincial government make up this shortfall? Ironically, by eliminating a proposed reduction in small business tax rates. And by increasing corporate taxes from 10 per cent to 12 per cent. Knee-jerk defense of one tax policy (HST) winds up dismantling another (income tax). Bear in mind that HST is a spigot that turns most easily in only one direction. In Europe, HST rates now average 19.6 per cent and have risen to 25 per cent in many countries.

4. More open to cheaters. As noted last week, Ottawa's HST collection system is a leaky bucket. For the first decade of the tax, then revenue minister Elinor Kaplan pegged GST fraud losses at $154 million. In 2010, 199 new cases of GST/HST fraud totaling $73.6 million went before the courts. Judgments amounted to $7.3 million, of which $1.7 million was recovered, $4.2 million is expected to be recovered in future, and $1.7 million is deemed unrecoverable. And of course what gets before the courts only tells part of the story.

Not surprisingly, as the HST referendum campaign draws to a close, we all know more than we did at the beginning.

Consider this: Consumers are paying more tax under HST. We've traded a flexible PST policy instrument in the hands of the province for a blunt, across the board, tax-on-everything (HST) in the hands of Ottawa. To sell this puppy to the people of B.C., small business will lose the stimulus of a proposed tax reduction, and corporate taxes will go up... And under the HST, all our provincial tax money is being dumped into Ottawa's leaky input-tax-credit-bucket, creating new opportunities for the unscrupulous.

Just exactly why would anyone vote No?

[Novabonker]

ROFLMFAO - good ol' AF just disappears when he can't dispute FACTS - Hilarious!


Here's a good one- OUR money (some of it from the HST spoils no doubt) going to Seaspan and the Washington Group- last time I saw Dennis's boat, either the "dingy" with the helipad and chopper, or the new really big one, it didn't occur to me he was short or I might have lent him a couple of bucks....... But we'll still top the charts in child and seniors living in poverty.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/07/25/bc-shipbuilding-investment.html

40 million and giving it to them just warms my heart (because my blood is boiling)

Seaspan is a wholly owned subsidiary of American Based Washington Group. They owned Montana Rail-link amongst other interests. Washington Group International was acquired by URS Corporation of San Francisco in November 2007 for $3.1 billion, and currently operates as the "Energy and Construction Division" of URS

[Sandman]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/07/25/bc-shipbuilding-investment.html

40 million and giving it to them just warms my heart (because my blood is boiling)

Seaspan is a wholly owned subsidiary of American Based Washington Group. They owned Montana Rail-link amongst other interests. Washington Group International was acquired by URS Corporation of San Francisco in November 2007 for $3.1 billion, and currently operates as the "Energy and Construction Division" of URS

This is an interesting one. I remember working on one of those "dingys" (an earlier version of the Attessa) in a big environmentally controlled tent.  Now, are you objecting because Dennis Washington is American (Seaspan is another example of an American "Branch Plant" type investment, where an American interest owns the plant/shipyard and Canadians work in it, much like most of the manufacturing sector in Canada), or would you still object to this government investment if Seaspan was a Canadian owned company?  This proposed "investment" would appear to be  form of "subsidization" and I wonder if Quebec and Nova Scotia are offering similar "investments."  Obviously the BC government is counting on the jobs created or maintained through the lucrative federal contract will result in future tax revenues that exceed the $40 million invested.   All those ship builders (including the projected additional 6800 jobs created by this contract) will be spending their paychecks in BC and even at 10%, that is a lot of HST revenue, not to mention the income tax collected.  However, one is left wondering, if the government should be able to meddle in the bidding process in this way "helping Seaspan submit the strongest possible bid," or is the commitment to provide the training, and more tax breaks acceptable if it helps create direct jobs in BC?

[alwaysfishn]

Some more common sense.....  http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2011/07/25/NixHST/

Isn't that what one would call an oxymoron?

[alwaysfishn]

Here's a good one- OUR money (some of it from the HST spoils no doubt) going to Seaspan and the Washington Group- last time I saw Dennis's boat, either the "dingy" with the helipad and chopper, or the new really big one, it didn't occur to me he was short or I might have lent him a couple of bucks....... But we'll still top the charts in child and seniors living in poverty.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/07/25/bc-shipbuilding-investment.html

40 million and giving it to them just warms my heart (because my blood is boiling)

Seaspan is a wholly owned subsidiary of American Based Washington Group. They owned Montana Rail-link amongst other interests. Washington Group International was acquired by URS Corporation of San Francisco in November 2007 for $3.1 billion, and currently operates as the "Energy and Construction Division" of URS[/font][/color]

This is an interesting one. I remember working on one of those "dingys" (an earlier version of the Attessa) in a big environmentally controlled tent.  Now, are you objecting because Dennis Washington is American (Seaspan is another example of an American "Branch Plant" type investment, where an American interest owns the plant/shipyard and Canadians work in it, much like most of the manufacturing sector in Canada), or would you still object to this government investment if Seaspan was a Canadian owned company?  This proposed "investment" would appear to be  form of "subsidization" and I wonder if Quebec and Nova Scotia are offering similar "investments."  Obviously the BC government is counting on the jobs created or maintained through the lucrative federal contract will result in future tax revenues that exceed the $40 million invested.   All those ship builders (including the projected additional 6800 jobs created by this contract) will be spending their paychecks in BC and even at 10%, that is a lot of HST revenue, not to mention the income tax collected.  However, one is left wondering, if the government should be able to meddle in the bidding process in this way "helping Seaspan submit the strongest possible bid," or is the commitment to provide the training, and more tax breaks acceptable if it helps create direct jobs in BC?

Thanks for adding some rational thought to a very confusing post, Sandman.  (Investment is required to create jobs)

[StillAqua]

This proposed "investment" would appear to be  form of "subsidization" and I wonder if Quebec and Nova Scotia are offering similar "investments."  Obviously the BC government is counting on the jobs created or maintained through the lucrative federal contract will result in future tax revenues that exceed the $40 million invested.   All those ship builders (including the projected additional 6800 jobs created by this contract) will be spending their paychecks in BC and even at 10%, that is a lot of HST revenue, not to mention the income tax collected.  However, one is left wondering, if the government should be able to meddle in the bidding process in this way "helping Seaspan submit the strongest possible bid," or is the commitment to provide the training, and more tax breaks acceptable if it helps create direct jobs in BC?

How many times have we seen this before, with provincial governments competing against other provincial governments with our tax dollars for our federal tax dollars? I could never understand why provincial and federal governments are so eager to spend our taxpayer dollars on subsidizing a Canadian ship building industry that has been proven time and again not be internationally competitive with the big European shipyards or the cheap labour Asian shipyards. It doesn't work unless they can start winning foreign shipbuilding contracts and previous attempts to subsidize the industry so they can be internationally competitive have come up fruitless. The whole industry needs a serious re-think.

Most of the $35B ship's contracts is for war ships; add in the $16B for fighter jets; plus the costs of armed forces personnel, fuel, supplies, etc.; that's a lot of taxpayer dollars getting ready for battle.....but who exactly are we going to fight? 

[Novabonker]

Exactly StillAqua - It's like having an athletic contest between your children to see who gets to eat, and lavishing it all on the winner with the biggest bribe instead of sharing it amongst them. That's so screwed up it makes my head spin.There shouldn't be any bribes or provincial money attached to a fair process - not a tainted one that reeks of political interference How the heck do you justify pouring 40 million into a very successful company without every failing or slumping industry coming to you with it's hand out?

And maybe AF can tell me how to get some of this lolly  

[Sandman]

Most of the $35B ship's contracts is for war ships; add in the $16B for fighter jets; plus the costs of armed forces personnel, fuel, supplies, etc.; that's a lot of taxpayer dollars getting ready for battle.....but who exactly are we going to fight? 

Remember this?



I suppose the question is, should we wait until we are already embroiled in another conflict and then start to refit the armed forces? 

Thanks for the props AF, but NB and SA raise interesting questions.  Can this type of government military spending be justified in a time when tax dollars could be going to more philanthropic endeavors, such as healthcare, education or child poverty. I know the health care system could use more nurses and technicians, and the education system could use more teachers, teaching assistants, teacher librarian, etc., and $40 million could go a long way to improving the lives of countless children living in poverty here in BC.  Are they going to offer the training program to people currently on income assistance?  I get the allure of a lucrative contract, but should the government not let the private sector compete on its own terms? Why does one company get a break while others do not?  What about all the other companies in BC competing for contracts around the country and the globe?  Why are they not deserving of this type of deal? Why does Washington, one of the wealthiest men in the world need another tax break?  Just food for thought.

[Novabonker]

LOL Sandman - I guess we hit the post button at the same time. And it does bother me to no end why we are lining Dennis Washington's overflowing pockets with our gold.

[skaha]

--Its all in how they spend it not how they collect it.
--Changing the way tax is collected will not reduce spending waste.

--Select redistribution can be accomplished with either system... must be the old bell curve thing... not everyone agrees with giving back to the lowest % of income earners or where the cut off should be. On the other end of the curve it seems many feel the highest income earners shouldn't pay either... that leaves the majority of us paying.
--We all seem to have a good and valid reason to not pay or to have someone else pay more to make the system what in our opinion is Fair.

--I haven't seen any BC political party with a palatable plan to spend the money wisely. Maybe we should be focused on how they spend it rather than how they collect it.  

[alwaysfishn]

Remember this?



I suppose the question is, should we wait until we are already embroiled in another conflict and then start to refit the armed forces? 

Thanks for the props AF, but NB and SA raise interesting questions.  Can this type of government military spending be justified in a time when tax dollars could be going to more philanthropic endeavors, such as healthcare, education or child poverty. I know the health care system could use more nurses and technicians, and the education system could use more teachers, teaching assistants, teacher librarian, etc., and $40 million could go a long way to improving the lives of countless children living in poverty here in BC.  Are they going to offer the training program to people currently on income assistance?  I get the allure of a lucrative contract, but should the government not let the private sector compete on its own terms? Why does one company get a break while others do not?  What about all the other companies in BC competing for contracts around the country and the globe?  Why are they not deserving of this type of deal? Why does Washington, one of the wealthiest men in the world need another tax break?  Just food for thought.

That's an interesting question for which you probably know the answer....   

It's like asking; "My cash flow is really tight this year, would it be ok if I stopped paying the premiums on my house insurance?" The answer is; Of course you could , but what if your house burns down?

Our military is probably more important than ever in this age of wacko terrorists!

It's also quite naive to suggest that we are lining someones pockets when we invest in an industry that will provide jobs and income to BC residents who in turn will pay taxes. This amount is not the sole investment, the wealthy investor has already put in many times that amount into the business. The purpose of the incentive is to get the business to put more of their own money in the business.

Why not look at the other side of the equation....  What if there were no incentives offered in BC for wealthy individuals/businesses to invest? Given an opportunity to invest in a province that did offer incentives, where do you think the wealthy individual would invest their money? That's where the new jobs would be created!

Why not use the funds to support social programs instead??   you could do that, but only for a short period of time.... until the money runs out. Creating jobs generates tax revenue which can fund social programs over the long term.

[alwaysfishn]

--Its all in how they spend it not how they collect it.
--Changing the way tax is collected will not reduce spending waste.

--Select redistribution can be accomplished with either system... must be the old bell curve thing... not everyone agrees with giving back to the lowest % of income earners or where the cut off should be. On the other end of the curve it seems many feel the highest income earners shouldn't pay either... that leaves the majority of us paying.
--We all seem to have a good and valid reason to not pay or to have someone else pay more to make the system what in our opinion is Fair.

--I haven't seen any BC political party with a palatable plan to spend the money wisely. Maybe we should be focused on how they spend it rather than how they collect it. 

Great idea, but how are you going to arrive at a consensus on how to spend the money? Take any government expenditure and you will find those in favor and those opposed. I am certain that an individual that finds employment as a result of the government providing an incentive to his employer will not be opposed to government incentives.... 

I would suggest that there is not an expenditure that the government has made that would be opposed by 100% of the population. Where do you draw the line? 70%? 60%? What would be the approval rate required before the government gives the incentive? How would you determine the approval rate?

It's great to sit back and say they should be spending the money better, what suggestions do you have as to how to achieve that?

[skaha]

"Why not look at the other side of the equation....  What if there were no incentives offered in BC for wealthy individuals/businesses to invest? Given an opportunity to invest in a province that did offer incentives, where do you think the wealthy individual would invest their money? That's where the new jobs would be created!"

--to a point but I get nervous when we spend money to help build a shipyard in Alberta...invest where it makes sense and not industry specific.
--infrastructure such as guaranteed source electricity or skilled work force. tax breaks not so much... Yes they work for easily moved jobs such as call centres which rely on least cost to make a profit... and yes I agree it is difficult to make people play fair.. 

--If I didn't have to pay taxes I would volunteer to spend some portion of the tax money to hire someone to mow my lawn so I could go fishing.

--PS.. I voted No to keep the HST... it is a battle lost.. that is why I believe we should now concentrate on the best use for the money.
--Waiting for a new thread after we know the outcome of the vote. I expect even if we go back to GST/PST that many new products will be added to the PST list in order to bring about the same required revenue. I still haven't seen this government or the government in waiting explain why we needed this revenue and what we are actually going to spend it on... is it past Olympic debt or new programs... I haven't heard an explanation yet. Need to see the balance sheet before speculating on what I'd spend the new found money on.

--I've always been a believer is basic necessities... like tie the minimum wage to the price of draft beer.. when I first worked for min wage of $1.10 I could buy 5 draft beer and still a tip or if being a big spender I'd buy 4 and one for the waiter...how many draft beer can I buy now for one hours work at min wage.

[StillAqua]

That's an interesting question for which you probably know the answer....   

It's like asking; "My cash flow is really tight this year, would it be ok if I stopped paying the premiums on my house insurance?" The answer is; Of course you could , but what if your house burns down?

Our military is probably more important than ever in this age of wacko terrorists!

The analogy doesn't make sense. Canada lacks a long-term realistic strategy for our armed forces and we're not about to get one from the Harper government. I have no idea what bogeymen we are preparing to do battle with. If we're international peace-keepers, we need ground troops and specialists to assist with rebuilding infrastruture and economies, not frigates and destroyers to shell the populace. If we're on the guard for domestic terrorists, we need better internal security systems, not fighter jets giving us summer air shows. If we're defending our claim to our Arctic territories, we need Coast Guard icebreakers and Arctic stations and an infrastructure that supports the aboriginal communities that call it home. Now that kind of "military" investment of our precious tax dollars is something I could support.

[StillAqua]

--If I didn't have to pay taxes I would volunteer to spend some portion of the tax money to hire someone to mow my lawn so I could go fishing.

--I've always been a believer is basic necessities... like tie the minimum wage to the price of draft beer.. when I first worked for min wage of $1.10 I could buy 5 draft beer and still a tip or if being a big spender I'd buy 4 and one for the waiter...how many draft beer can I buy now for one hours work at min wage.

Now you're talking Skaha....fishing and beer in one post.....that's a real tax lesson we can relate to.