HST Dies!

[Ben Kenobi]

I begin by reaching the critical conclusion that the HST imposed by the Excise Tax Act in British Columbia is not taxation for provincial purposes such that it represents an intrusion on British Columbia’s constitutional taxing power under s. 92 of the Constitution Act.

I accept that the HST is taxation for a national purpose with the aim, as submitted by the respondents, of building a stronger economic foundation for Canada and achieving administrative efficiencies

Question here Flubber, is HST taxation used to fund the bills of the Province, yes or no?

[Flubber]

Question here Flubber, is HST taxation used to fund the bills of the Province, yes or no?

Nope-- the question is and was whether the HST is constitutional-- on currently decded caselaw the answer is YES.

The second question is whether the case addressed constitutionality-- clearly it did and you were wrong once again.Amazing that you made that mistake when I had already posted a law firrms comment on the case and a link to the case itself. Had you read it?


Can the merits be argued?-- sure thats why I said a bunch of posts ago that there was an interesting argument--

[Ben Kenobi]

Mr. Flubber, it's a yes or no answer.

Mr. Flubber, is the revenue collected through the HST taxation used to cover provincial expenditures?

[notyoueither]

The answer is that Ben is a moron of Texas proportions.

The federal government has been collecting provincial taxes forevvar! and remitting them to the provinces.

Ben, you are now just a crude caricature of a homo sapiens with a damaged brain stem.

[Flubber]

Ben

Your question does not matter.

Parliament has the authority to legislate in relation to its own debt and its own property. It is entitled to spend the money that it raises through proper exercise of its taxing power in the manner that it chooses to authorize. It can impose conditions on such disposition so long as the conditions do not amount in fact to a regulation or control of a matter outside federal authority. The federal ontributions are now made in such a way that they do not control or regulate provincial use of them.

[Ben Kenobi]

The answer is that Ben is a moron of Texas proportions.

Mr NYE.

Again, the question is, is the revenue collected through the HST used to fund provincial expenditures? Yes or no.

The federal government has been collecting provincial taxes forevvar! and remitting them to the provinces.

That, unsurprisingly wasn't the question.

[Ben Kenobi]

Your question does not matter.

It does matter and I'll tell you why.

Provinces are responsible to the people that they tax. This is no different then making the King responsible to parliament by making it so that his money is first approved by parliament. If the province is remitted money from the federal government, then they are no longer responsible to the people.

Parliament has the authority to legislate in relation to its own debt and its own property.

Yes, but not provincially. The Feds have the authority to legislate, providing that they do not violate the division of powers between them and the provinces.

It is entitled to spend the money that it raises through proper exercise of its taxing power in the manner that it chooses to authorize. It can impose conditions on such disposition so long as the conditions do not amount in fact to a regulation or control of a matter outside federal authority. The federal ontributions are now made in such a way that they do not control or regulate provincial use of them.

Constitutionally, they are not permitted to raise money provincially to fund provincial expenditures, which is what they are doing with HST. They are permitted to raise money provincially for federal expenditures.

I take it that you admit that they are in fact collecting HST to fund provincial expenditures which is direct violation of the exclusivity clause. Rather then even answer a yes or no question, you continue to dodge it.

[notyoueither]

The feds collect taxes levied by the provinces and send the cash to the appropriate province. All. The. Time.

Provincial legislatures set tax rates and decide how to spend the money.

Canada Revenue takes direction from the provinces and collects whatever is appropriate in the particular jurisdiction.

Nova Scotia recently raised their sales tax. Canada Revenue relayed to merchants that the HST there would go up by ~2%, adjustments were made, taxes collected and remitted to Canada Revenue, and the treasury then sent the cash to the province.

What is it about this that is so difficult for you to comprehend?

[Ben Kenobi]

The feds collect taxes levied by the provinces and send the cash to the appropriate province. All. The. Time.

HST isn't levied by the province.

Provincial legislatures set tax rates and decide how to spend the money.

Not under the HST.

Nova Scotia recently raised their sales tax. Canada Revenue relayed to merchants that the HST there would go up by ~2%, adjustments were made, taxes collected and remitted to Canada Revenue, and the treasury then sent the cash to the province.

So the HST is used to fund provincial expenditures. Thank you. Section 92:2 prevents the Federal government from collecting money used to fund provincial expenditures.

What is it about this that is so difficult for you to comprehend?

That you refused to answer a yes or no question, indicates that the question stands.

[notyoueither]

See here.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/bsnss/tpcs/pyrll/t4032/jn11/menu-eng.html

Each province has its own tables for payroll deductions. This is because personal income tax rates vary by province. Canada Revenue is a convenient agent for collecting the funds. The provinces agree that CR will collect the funds. The provinces receive the cash from the feds and decide how to spend it. There is nothing unconstitutional about the provinces agreeing that CR will be a collection agent.

[notyoueither]

Provincial legislatures set tax rates and decide how to spend the money.

Not under the HST.

Yes, under the HST.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2010/04/06/ns-budget.html

[giblets]

The answer is that Ben is a moron of Texas proportions.

He's an even bigger moron than that. He's a moron of... well, British Columbia is larger than Texas, so I'll go with that.

[Ben Kenobi]

Each province has its own tables for payroll deductions. This is because personal income tax rates vary by province. Canada Revenue is a convenient agent for collecting the funds. The provinces agree that CR will collect the funds. The provinces receive the cash from the feds and decide how to spend it. There is nothing unconstitutional about the provinces agreeing that CR will be a collection agent.

Under the HST, they can't have separate deductions for different industries. This is a violation of 92:2, which states that provinces can set these rates. HST infringes on provincial authority.

NYE they don't 'set the tax rates', because the Feds set the HST. HST is levied by the Feds, that's a big and important difference.

[notyoueither]

He's an even bigger moron than that. He's a moron of... well, British Columbia is larger than Texas, so I'll go with that.

I'm personally very happy for Ben that he is in Texas.

Now if only BC could get rid of a couple million more morons. That province is our version of California. It is seriously ****ed up in its government and has been for years.

[Ben Kenobi]

Now if only BC could get rid of a couple million more morons. That province is our version of California. It is seriously ****ed up in its government and has been for years.

Most BC folks went to Alberta for work, especially where I am from. A couple folks I graduated with stayed. Wholeheartedly agree here, and it starts with eliminating the provincial sales tax.

For the California analogy, SoCal = Vancouver. NorCal = Prince George. PG is pretty similar to Redding.