HST Dies!

[notyoueither]

You're wrong again, Ben.

The provinces may exempt things that GST applies to, and they may tax things GST does not apply to (food, rent).

The difference is that the GST/HST is a better system for businesses. It encourages jobs by lowering costs. I am not surprised that BC rejected it.

[Ben Kenobi]

The difference is that the GST/HST is a better system for businesses. It encourages jobs by lowering costs. I am not surprised that BC rejected it.

HST at 7, yes. HST at 12, no. All HST at 12 does is hurt the customers. Sure it helps with regulations but it raises taxes on people. I'd love to support HST, but not as a tax grab during a recession.

[notyoueither]

http://www.rev.gov.on.ca/en/taxchange/taxable.html

Point-of-sale rebate

Other products are eligible for a point-of-sale rebate for the Ontario part (eight per cent) of the HST. This means you will only pay the five per cent federal portion of the HST. These include print newspapers, books (including audio books), diapers, children's clothing and footwear, children's car seats and booster seats, feminine hygiene products, and qualifying prepared food and beverages sold for $4.00 or less.

[notyoueither]

Anyways, I'm done here.

Poor children in Texas.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yeah, Ontario will be interesting now that they are slaves to the Feds like the rest of the eastern bastards. They got a terrible deal even worse than BC.

[Ben Kenobi]

Poor children in Texas.

Hmm? I teach in a parochial school. If anything they are more to the right than me.

[MattBowron]

when I first read this I thought HST was the Hubble Space Telescope

[Flubber]

HST at 7, yes. HST at 12, no. All HST at 12 does is hurt the customers. Sure it helps with regulations but it raises taxes on people. I'd love to support HST, but not as a tax grab during a recession.

I am trying to understand this comment.


Is your main or only real objection to the HST the fact that you see it as a tax grab or tax increase (which it would be in essence if you applied an unchanged provincial rate to a larger group of "taxable supplies") IF the BC government had dropped the rate compared to their existing PST enough in bringing it into a harmonized system such that it would be at least revenue neutral or even a tax decrease, would you have still opposed it??

Your prior posts hint at this but in your flurries of short posts it is tough to glean all your concerns. I have seen you raise two main points

1, its a tax increase
2. its the province giving up taxation autonomy


What other concerns do you have? A list would be helpful.


I leave aside constitutionality since you have to acknowledge on the currently decided caselaw, the HST has been determined to be constitutional-- despite your longwinded and repeated assertions otherwise

[Ben Kenobi]

Is your main or only real objection to the HST

You still don't get it? My main objection is that it is unconstitutional. How many times do I have to keep saying this before you finally get it?

I leave aside constitutionality since you have to acknowledge on the currently decided caselaw

Answer my damn question. You can't even answer a direct yes or no question and you expect me to just concede? Hah!

the fact that you see it as a tax grab or tax increase

HST keeps the provincial rate, but expands it to things that were not covered by PST in BC. It is a tax grab, and one for the federal government, not the province. It's a terrible deal for BC, that thankfully got scuttled.

IF the BC government had dropped the rate compared to their existing PST enough in bringing it into a harmonized system such that it would be at least revenue neutral or even a tax decrease, would you have still opposed it??

No, because my initial concern was the tax increase. I would never have ended up working for the campaign. If the government had negotiated a 5 and 5 deal with the feds, it would have passed and provincial opposition to it would have been nil.

Campbell did everything wrong. 1, made an election promise and went back on it. 2, negotiated a bad deal with the feds, up front payment for losses within the year. 3, did not get the legislature to vote on it. 4, when pressed, resigned rather then see the HST die. Had he accepted the will of the people he'd still be premier today.

Opposition, unlike that which was predicted was majority against the HST, but in support of Campbell.

[Ben Kenobi]

2. its the province giving up taxation autonomy

Well yeah, that's sort of it. Let the eastern bastards rot in the dark. That's why the division of powers are there. I remember what BC was like under the NDP, and how they became a have-not province in Canada. I've seen my own town have one of the worst contractions ever. Things were bad in the 90s and bad in the 2000s, and they are bad right now. Vanderzalm was the last time my region had any sort of prosperity. You could see it when he came up, he was shocked that people remembered him so fondly given that it has been 20 years. But the town is smaller now than it was back then.

Folks have seen their kids leve and not come back. For at least the last 10 years that has been the case. 1/3rd of the schools closed. My own junior high is gone.

Those are my concerns, Flubber, and I'm convinced that HST simply was the nail in the coffin. BC needs tax reform and they need it straight away.

[Flubber]

You still don't get it? My main objection is that it is unconstitutional. How many times do I have to keep saying this before you finally get it?

.

Actually NO it appears that is not your main objection since you said "I would never have ended up working for the campaign. If the government had negotiated a 5 and 5 deal with the feds, it would have passed and provincial opposition to it would have been nil." Basically you are saying if it was a 10% HST instead of a 12 you would never have opposed it. Did your concern evolve?


Also you keep stating its unconstitutional. All we have for that is like, your opinion. Against that on the saying it is constitutional side we have

1. the "opinion" of some UBC law professors-- forgive me if I find them a bit more compelling when it comes to legal analysis
2. the "opinion of the trial judge-- oh wait-- that opinion is law at the moment
3. My own reading of caselaw with respect to federal-provincial co-operation. A theme throughout seemed to be that when two levels of government are co-operating explicitly-- the courts lately seem loathe to throw out the scheme on a division of powers basis. --- here they can see that the HST is a national scheme with a national purpose of creating one integrated HST in all provinces but which is only implemented as provinces opt-in. It is actually far less intrusive on provincial powers than some of the things the feds have done in putting conditions on certain funding programs (the spending powers) and those programs were approved by the courts as well. Could there be an argument that works and defeats the HST? Possibly-- I discount nothing, but the tenor of the decisions seems to favor these co-operative programs and regardless of the feeling inside the province, the HST was implemented with the agreement of the provincial government

[Ben Kenobi]

Actually NO it appears that is not your main objection since you said "I would never have ended up working for the campaign.

You either have a reading problem or you just choose to lie about what others say.

No, I said that my initial concern was the tax increase. That's what drove me to go see Bill VanderZalm. That is when I first heard of the constitutional argument. I did not initially know of the constitutional argument until after I heard him speak and speak later.

That is why, even though it wasn't my initial rationale for opposing the tax, it was, and is my primary motivation now.

I hope that's clear to you because you just don't seem to be getting it, flugbber.

Basically you are saying if it was a 10% HST instead of a 12 you would never have opposed it. Did your concern evolve?

Yes, it did, after I spoke with VanderZalm and realized that the province was giving up provicial autonomy, which is why the Feds were happily paying off Campbell.

Also you keep stating its unconstitutional. All we have for that is like, your opinion.

Not my opinion. What you have is VanderZalm on one side, premier to the province, and Campbell, also premier to the province on the other side. So far it seems that the people agree with VanderZalm and KOed the tax when they got a chance to have their say.

As for the BC supreme court, they don't have the authority to regulate the Canadian constitution. That would be a higher court. They can express their opinion, but as I've argued, their opinion doesn't have merit. HST is used to fund the provincial legislature, contrary to what the BC Supreme Court said.

3. My own reading of caselaw with respect to federal-provincial co-operation. A theme throughout seemed to be that when two levels of government are co-operating explicitly-- the courts lately seem loathe to throw out the scheme on a division of powers basis.

I'm not against Federal Provincial cooperation, but it's only natural that the would be loathe to oppose it if for nothing more then to not piss off either level of government.

Justices are supposed to stand up for the Constitution against the all-powerful PMO, but that's sadly not the case in Canada.

It is actually far less intrusive on provincial powers than some of the things the feds have done in putting conditions on certain funding programs (the spending powers) and those programs were approved by the courts as well.

Oh believe me, I don't like those either. I'm also not fond of equalization payments all together, especially when BC was receiving them, simply because it removes the responsibility of the legislature to tax the people of their province.

BC has been an interesting case, really. It's came off of Equalization, and it's rejected the HST. BC doesn't like having a premier who isn't responsible to the province, but the other provinces seem only to happy to borrow from Alberta to pay off their constituencies back east.

Could there be an argument that works and defeats the HST? Possibly-- I discount nothing, but the tenor of the decisions seems to favor these co-operative programs and regardless of the feeling inside the province, the HST was implemented with the agreement of the provincial government

As always, let the people decide.

[Flubber]

As for the BC supreme court, they don't have the authority to regulate the Canadian constitution. That would be a higher court.
.

Ben

I take your comments to be a belief that only the supremen court of Canada can adjudicate constitutional matters. THis is again incorrect.

Matters of constitutional law are determined by lower courts all the time. All sorts of folks argue constitutional matters and when it gets heard in the supreme court of the province (or lots of time in federal TAX court , that decision is binding. Automatically going to the supremes is through the reference process which was not invoked here. -- The fact that a former premier or a lot of people are behind a case is irrelevant to their status as litigants. UNless the reference process is invoked you only get to the SUPREMES through the normal process -- I am not expert on supreme court process but I believe the guaranteed right to appeal would only apply to criminal matters and even if pursued, this could end with the BC CA unless leave to appeal to the supremes were granted.

The Supreme Court does have a special kind of "reference" jurisdiction, original in character, given by s. 53 of the Supreme Court Act. The Governor-in-Council may refer to the Court, for its opinion, important questions of law or fact concerning the interpretation of the Constitution, the constitutionality or interpretation of any federal or provincial legislation, or the powers of Parliament or of the provincial legislatures or their respective governments or any other important question of law or fact concerning any matter. Where the government of any province has any special interest in any question put in reference, the Attorney General of the province shall be notified in order that he or she may be heard.

Constitutional questions may also be raised in regular appeals involving individual litigants or governments or governmental agencies. In such cases the federal and provincial governments are notified of the constitutional question and may intervene to argue it.

http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/court-cour/sys/index-eng.asp

So for the moment the decision of the BC supremen court is as binding as ANY court decision by that level of court is. (decisive as between the litigants, subject to appeal) . Since the opponents to the HST won on referendum, an appeal might not be pursued since for BC its currently almost moot. BUt if the constitutional law part is importanmt and NOT just the dispositioon of this tax, I could see why an appeal WOULD be pursued

[Flubber]

Not my opinion. What you have is VanderZalm on one side, premier to the province, and Campbell, also premier to the province on the other side. So far it seems that the people agree with VanderZalm and KOed the tax when they got a chance to have their say.

.

I am sure many people would vote to KO the tax even if they know it were perfectly constitutional. I like people having their say but it is ierrelevant to a discussion of what is constitutional on a division of powers question

[Flubber]

You either have a reading problem or you just choose to lie about what others say.

I quoted you exact words and asked if your concern evolved. IT was an honest and obvious question based on your contradictory statements aboout your concerns