HST Dies!

[Kidlicious]

About the VAT-less prices I always figured Americans were just really good at math. Another illusion... shattered.

I don't even know what the rate is.

[Sparrowhawk]

As someone who actuallly lives in the Province in question, and actually got to vote in the referendum that never should have been (though I voted for the side that lost).....HST would have been better for BC in the long run, as it passes the tax to the final consumer by way of "ITC's" (Input Tax Credits). This means that as businesses buy things that they pay HST on they claim that HST as an ITC against the amounts they charge and collect from their customers. In the end the business pays less tax in the HST system, as they can then pass on these savings to the customer, whereas with the PST/GST system, they have to pass on the cost of the PST to the customers making it harder to compete with provinces like Alberta, who has no PST. I believe that the wide opposition to the HST was what helped make the liberals realize taht they had made a huge mistake and as such offered to lower the tax from 12% to 10% over the next few years. In my opinion the voters of BC made a huge mistake in voting against the HST.

The HST was a horrible political move that cost the liberal party their leader and cost the province billions. That is without argument. However, claiming that BC is somehow better off under the PST/GST system is absurd and shows a lack of economic sense. In the long run consumers will be worse off under PST/GST.

As someone who administers the taxes for a business the idea of having to seperate tracking systems and remitances for too many taxes is not something I look forward to doing, perhaps all of us should be moving to Alberta, at least it's still close enough to be able to spend weekends in BC even if we can't afford to live here.

/me

[Asher]

Alberta.

Market is booming. Come on in. The water is cold, as it should be.

[Ben Kenobi]

As someone who actuallly lives in the Province in question, and actually got to vote in the referendum that never should have been (though I voted for the side that lost).....HST would have been better for BC in the long run, as it passes the tax to the final consumer by way of "ITC's" (Input Tax Credits). This means that as businesses buy things that they pay HST on they claim that HST as an ITC against the amounts they charge and collect from their customers. In the end the business pays less tax in the HST system, as they can then pass on these savings to the customer, whereas with the PST/GST system, they have to pass on the cost of the PST to the customers making it harder to compete with provinces like Alberta, who has no PST.

Depends on the size of your business. If you do business outside of BC, yes it would save you money. If your business was inside of BC and operated inside BC alone, you lost money under the new regime. The savings for a business correlated directly with the size of the enterprise.

Overall take on HST was estimated to be about 2.8 billion a year, plus, over and above GST+ PST. This money would come primarily, from the consumer, who would pay more for certain items.

Now, the million dollar question. If your customers have less money to spend, are your sales going to be as high as previous. No. So while the cost of doing business decreases, shifting the burden to your customers means you actually make less money if sales are down.

I believe that the wide opposition to the HST was what helped make the liberals realize taht they had made a huge mistake and as such offered to lower the tax from 12% to 10% over the next few years. In my opinion the voters of BC made a huge mistake in voting against the HST.

They should have done that instantly. It would have passed had they done this back in 2010. They did not, and paid the price. This is what they did in Nova Scotia, etc. I know because this was my selling argument to the folks that I spoke with who generally agreed that while HST in theory could have been a good deal for the province, this deal was not.

The HST was a horrible political move that cost the liberal party their leader and cost the province billions. That is without argument. However, claiming that BC is somehow better off under the PST/GST system is absurd and shows a lack of economic sense. In the long run consumers will be worse off under PST/GST.

Yes, the consumers are better off under PST/GST. That much will be apparent in 18 months after the Liberals stop foot dragging and accede to the referendum results. BTW, the referendum had far higher participation than the general election.

As someone who administers the taxes for a business the idea of having to seperate tracking systems and remitances for too many taxes is not something I look forward to doing, perhaps all of us should be moving to Alberta, at least it's still close enough to be able to spend weekends in BC even if we can't afford to live here.

As an ex-pat myself, I encourage you to do so. BC needs comprehensive tax reform. Instead they got HST which raised taxes, not lowered them. At least with GST/PST, the provincial government can still lower the PST to 3 percent and do 7-3. I've been a longterm proponent of 7 and 3, because that would halve the alberta advantage and raise incentives for BC residents to actually do business in BC. I'm getting business still from BC, who are quite happy to deal with TX. If I'm still competitive from half a continent away. BC businesswise is a joke. I lost zero clients by moving, and halved my costs instantly.

[Dinner]

Ben goes out of his way to find opportunities to be wrong.

Wouldn't know. I, happily, haven't read a Ben post in a while.

[Flubber]

At least with GST/PST, the provincial government can still lower the PST to 3 percent and do 7-3. I've been a longterm proponent of 7 and 3, .

You must be a long term proponent--- You do realize the GST went to FIVE percent on Jan 1 2008 -- How oh how if the province dropped the PST to 3 percent would it be 7-3?

let me guess . . .. the same way that the words "property division" mean "support payments" or the same way I was resorting to made up terms when I quoted legislation exactly??

Or this time . .. . will you admit your error and that you are speaking out of your ass since you campaigned hard in the 2011 referendum but had no clue about something as basic as the existing level of taxation? I would have thought a typo but when you repeat it twice and it fits completely with your assertion that overall taxation should be 10%, a typo seems very unlikely.

[Ben Kenobi]

Or this time . .. . will you admit your error and that you are speaking out of your ass since you campaigned hard in the 2011 referendum but had no clue about something as basic as the existing level of taxation? I would have thought a typo but when you repeat it twice and it fits completely with your assertion that overall taxation should be 10%, a typo seems very unlikely.

Uh, so you're arguing that saying it's 7 and 3 instead of 5 and 5 is 'not understanding the existing level of taxation'?

Any port in a storm. Yeah, I was mixed up as to who dropped it, the province or the feds. The feds dropped to 5 and the province was still at 7. Been awhile. Given the HST coming, more worried about killing that bill. Now that's been done, we can reopen the debate about lowering the PST.

I've been a propenent of zero. BC is sandwiched between two jurisdictions, one that does not charge income taxes, and one that does not charge sales taxes. The road to competitiveness seems clear to me. Eliminate income or sales taxes, one or the other. I personally believe that eliminating income taxes is preferable in rewarding earnings.

Now, do you have anything substantive to contribute or are you here to nitpick?

[Flubber]

Uh, so you're arguing that saying it's 7 and 3 instead of 5 and 5 is 'not understanding the existing level of taxation'?

yes-- and didn't it feel good to admit that you were wrong ?

[Ben Kenobi]

yes-- and didn't it feel good to admit that you were wrong ?

Like you did when you admitted that you were wrong about platonic relationships appearing in statute? That was fun.

Level, no, composition, yes.

[Flubber]

Like you did when you admitted that you were wrong about platonic relationships appearing in statute? That was fun.

Level, no, composition, yes.

ben-- You lie-- if you want to revisit that stuff , go back to THAT thread and QUOTE ME where you think I erred. You frequently mischaracterize other posters statements, myself included, in ways that fit neither the writers intent nor any other person's reading. I have repeatedly asked you to quote me given your history of lies and shifting arguments.

Where you said things that were completely incorrect and I quoted you each time so the error is clear and could have been addressed by you.

[Flubber]

I was opposed to the HST because Ottawa shouldn't be collecting provincial taxes. That's against the constitution.

Here I am not saying you are wrong , but what constitutional provisions are violated Ben ?? I merely ask since the HST already exists in a number of provinces, and has for years, and I am a little surprised I haven't seen it struck down yet.

[Ben Kenobi]

ben-- You lie--

Then why not simply admit you are wrong since you find it enjoyable?

where you think I erred.

Uh, I asked you to prove where in the statutes platonic applied. You conceded it did not appear. Then you went off and said that it was irrelevent because it could simply be changed to 'conjugal'.

Which, btw, was exactly my point. Conjugal isn't in the statutes at present which is why my argument which you labelled as 'inane', actually is valid.

Keep up bro.

Rather then admit you erred, you'd rather call me all sorts of meany mean lawyer big word things. Goose -> Gander. At least I admit my mistakes, funny eh.

Those who are hell bent at proving others wrong never exhibit the behaviour they rail so hard against.

Frankly I find it humourous that you would dredge up this thread and the other out of your holy quest to prove Ben wrong, irrespective of my actual point. The good thing is that I don't have to pay for this entertainment.

[Ben Kenobi]

Here I am not saying you are wrong , but what constitutional provisions are violated Ben ?? I merely ask since the HST already exists in a number of provinces, and has for years, and I am a little surprised I haven't seen it struck down yet.

Good question. This post is actually worth my time.

Part of the Charter, section 31 clearly states, "Nothing in this Charter extends the legislative powers of any body or authority."

Which means that under the constitution act, of 1867, applies. One of the provisions under the constitution act of 1867 is the distribution of powers, which explicitly states that the provinces are in control of provincial regulation of trade, not Ottawa. Previous cases have confirmed that the Federal government can regulate interprovincial trade, if and only if the trade regulations cannot be established provincially.

This clearly isn't the case here.

Why didn't the Maritimes complain? Because they are net debtors. The provincial government there relies upon federal subsidies in order to make their budget. This effectively eliminates their authority as provincial bodies, because they are no longer in control of their own regulatory regime. Say that the feds wanted to cut education, the feds who are paying for it actually could effectively do so. This is clearly contrary to the division of powers.

As for Ontario, they also are net debtors, which isn't healthy for Canada as a whole. The reason it failed here in BC is because the province already pays out equalization and can actually afford to tell the feds to go to hell. Ontario cannot.

Anyways, that's the reason I am opposed to HST. I get the argument that HST is beneficial in reducing regulatory hurdles, but at what cost? Federalism. I'm a big federalist, and I'd rather see a weaker Ottawa and stronger provinces. Harmonization centralizes Canada.

You're unlikely to see a constitutional challenge, because teh powers that be are either supportive of the taxation, or indifferent to the constitution. This was the real shock in BC with VanderZalm. BC has always gone their own way. This is no different. VanderZalm managed to tap into this discontent on the right which was a subset of the population that has been ill represented both federally and provincially.

[notyoueither]

What an idiot.

For any interested parties, the federal revenue agency already collects provincial income taxes and then remits the provincial portions to the provinces. They have for as long as I have been using payroll tables (since the mid 80's). One province recently insisted that the tables be broken into two and the federal and provincial taxes be shown differently on employee documents. Guess which one? Each province has tables supplied by Canada Revenue for employers in their jurisdiction.

Nothing in the HST says the provinces cannot change their VAT tax rate and that change then be reflected in the HST levied in their jurisdiction.

[Flubber]

What an idiot.

For any interested parties, the federal revenue agency already collects provincial income taxes and then remits the provincial portions to the provinces. They have for as long as I have been using payroll tables (since the mid 80's). One province recently insisted that the tables be broken into two and the federal and provincial taxes be shown differently on employee documents. Guess which one? Each province has tables supplied by Canada Revenue for employers in their jurisdiction.

Nothing in the HST says the provinces cannot change their VAT tax rate and that change then be reflected in the HST levied in their jurisdiction.

THIS

PLus the constitution has several provisions on taxation so citing other powers seems a little odd