Harmonizing the GST and PST

[benny]

I'm not talking about tax system in general. I was responding to someone about the Native status card tax exemption. IMO that is a different topic than general taxation practices.

Seriously though, what about your whole duress comment, I still don't get it

Prior to the destruction of their cultures by Westerners, the Natives had their own economic system (called Potlatch) with no notion of tax.

[Riverwind]

Prior to the destruction of their cultures by Westerners, the Natives had their own economic system (called Potlatch) with no notion of tax.

From wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potlatch

The potlatch is a festival or ceremony practiced among Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast. At these gatherings a family or hereditary leader hosts guests in his family's house and hold a feast for their guests. The main purpose of the potlatch is the re-distribution and reciprocity of wealth.

...

The status of any given family is raised not by who has the most resources, but by who distributes the most resources. The hosts demonstrate their wealth and prominence through giving away goods.

...

It is a strict law that bids us dance. It is a strict law that bids us distribute our property among our friends and neighbors. It is a good law.

A tax by any other name is still a tax....

[benny]

A tax by any other name is still a tax....

A tax is not a gift.

[Riverwind]

A tax is not a gift.

A gift that is required by social obligation is another form of a tax. The only difference is the means used to enforce payment.

[benny]

A gift that is required by social obligation is another form of a tax. The only difference is the means used to enforce payment.

For natives, the gifts were done in between different tribes or nations. In others words, a potlatch is an international event; consumption taxation is, for us westerners, mainly a national or sub-national event.

[madmax]

If the government imposes a sales tax on Pepsi but not on Coke, it is the same as if the government gave a subsidy to Coke.

I think its simple... the HST will help screw over more Condo Owners.... Not Pepsi or Coke.... where, if I wanted one or the other with my affordable meal, I'd pay no tax... but, yes HST, thanks for taking a few more pennies out of my pocket.

But Condos baby... the Liberals are going big time.

[benny]

I think its simple... the HST will help screw over more Condo Owners.... Not Pepsi or Coke.... where, if I wanted one or the other with my affordable meal, I'd pay no tax... but, yes HST, thanks for taking a few more pennies out of my pocket.

But Condos baby... the Liberals are going big time.

Taxing home/condo sales instead of subsidizing them would have allowed us to eschew the mortgage mess.

Edited July 24, 2009 by benny

[Riverwind]

For natives, the gifts were done in between different tribes or nations. In others words, a potlatch is an international event; consumption taxation is, for us westerners, mainly a national or sub-national event.

When you define your 'nation' to be the group of people living with 5 miles of your village then every event is an 'international' affair. But that is irrelevent to my point that obligatory social gifts are just another form of taxation. Edited July 24, 2009 by Riverwind

[benny]

When you define your 'nation' to be the group of people living with 5 miles of your village then every event is an 'international' affair. But that is irrelevent to my point that obligatory social gifts are just another form of taxation.

An obligatory social gift and a tax differ relatively to the concept of reciprocity. The reciprocity in between a state and its citizens is not at all the same as the one in between two states.

[Riverwind]

An obligatory social gift and a tax differ relatively to the concept of reciprocity. The reciprocity in between a state and its citizens is not at all the same as the one in between two states.

The native social groupings are not "states" by any sensible definition of the word. They are tribes or clans. The mandatory gifting that you describe is a form of wealth redistribution where those that accumulate wealth are expected to give it away. A concept that is no different than an income based tax system.

[benny]

The native social groupings are not "states" by any sensible definition of the word. They are tribes or clans. The mandatory gifting that you describe is a form of wealth redistribution where those that accumulate wealth are expected to give it away. A concept that is no different than an income based tax system.

The very first Western states were city-states. Potlatch was very much like our diplomatic Summits.

[Riverwind]

The very first Western states were city-states. Potlatch was very much like our diplomatic Summits.

Or a visit to the in-laws. All states started out like large tribes but had to move to a more formal system of laws as the population increased. Potlatches may sound good to you but they don't scale well. Edited July 24, 2009 by Riverwind

[benny]

Or a visit to the in-laws. All states started out like large tribes but had to move to a more formal system of laws as the population increased. Potlatches may sound good to you but they don't scale well.

With Potlatch for too long forgotten, global warming is now at the top of the scale.

Edited July 24, 2009 by benny

[Riverwind]

With Potlatch for too long forgotten, global warming is now at the top of the scale.

Those were the good olde days: subsistance living and death from disease or injury by 40. "Global Warming" would dissappear as an issue if the advocates were forced to actually live a zero carbon lifestyle instead of simply telling other people that they have to do it.

[madmax]

Taxing home/condo sales instead of subsidizing them would have allowed us to eschew the mortgage mess.

Dream on....

[benny]

Those were the good olde days: subsistance living and death from disease or injury by 40.

Learn more about Stone Age economics:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=cg_bTbrdf2...lt&resnum=1

[Riverwind]

Learn more about Stone Age economics:

Economic systems suited for small, largely self sufficient tribes. Mass societies composed of millions of individuals that have no familial or social connection need a more formal economy that allows for much greater specialization than can be achieved in 'stone-age' economy. It is this specialization that allowed the development of the technologies that we take for granted today.

[benny]

Economic systems suited for small, largely self sufficient tribes. Mass societies composed of millions of individuals that have no familial or social connection need a more formal economy that allows for much greater specialization than can be achieved in 'stone-age' economy. It is this specialization that allowed the development of the technologies that we take for granted today.

These developments should be accepted with a carbon/pollution tax.

[Riverwind]

These developments should be accepted with a carbon/pollution tax.

That, of course, assumes that carbon (e.g. CO2) is actually something that will cause harm that needs to be prevented and it assumes that the tax will actually do something to prevent that harm. Neither assumption is necesarily true so the social cost of measures to reduce CO2 must be weighed against likelihood that the measures would accomplish something useful. Edited July 25, 2009 by Riverwind

[benny]

That, of course, assumes that carbon (e.g. CO2) is actually something that will cause harm that needs to be prevented and it assumes that the tax will actually do something to prevent that harm. Neither assumption is necesarily true so the social cost of measures to reduce CO2 must be weighed against likelihood that the measures would accomplish something useful.

Not at all, we only have to assume that emissions exceed the property limits of what is owned by their emitters.

Edited July 25, 2009 by benny

[Riverwind]

Not at all, we only have to assume that emissions exceed the property limits of what is owned by their emitters.

Again, not a valid criteria on its own since your logic could be used to shut down all radio and power transmission infrastructure since the emissions from these installations always exceed their property limits.

To impose limits on emissions that provide benefits it is necessary to demonstrate that:

1) the harms caused by the emissions exceed the benefits provided by the process that produced the emissions.

2) the harms caused by restricting the emissions are less than the harms potentially caused by the emissions.

Edited July 25, 2009 by Riverwind

[benny]

Again, not a valid criteria on its own since your logic could be used to shut down all radio and power transmission infrastructure since the emissions from these installations always exceed their property limits.

Just like radiowaves, carbon and all other emissions should be allowed by public authorities through auctions (i.e. taxation).

[Riverwind]

Just like radiowaves, carbon and all other emissions should be allowed by public authorities through auctions (i.e. taxation).

So you think that anyone who sets up a home wireless network should be forced to buy a permit because the emissions go beyond their property line? There are many other examples which all illustrate that the emission do not justify regulation unless there is a harm and that harm costs by limiting emissions is less than the harm caused by the emissions. Edited July 25, 2009 by Riverwind

[benny]

So you think that anyone who sets up a home wireless network should be forced to buy a permit because the emissions go beyond their property line? There are many other examples which all illustrate that the emission do not justify regulation unless there is a harm and that harm costs by limiting emissions is less than the harm caused by the emissions.

The burden of proving interference has to fall on someone able to shoulder it.

[Wilber]

Huge tax grab by the BC government. You will now be paying PST on everything that was exempt before. Buy a new home you will pay PST on the total price plus real estate fees, not just the materials that went into it. PST on every bit of labour and services that were not taxed before. Kids clothes, school supplies, everything you now pay GST on that was PST exempt before.

Campbell didn't like getting caught with his deficit lie during the election so he is going to fix it somehow. But wait a minute, he also said he wasn't going to harmonize the taxes at the same time. Goes to show you that the last honest thing said during an election was Kim Campbell's comment about elections being no time to discuss policy.

Edited July 27, 2009 by Wilber