BC Referendum on HST

[msj]

Going through the process of convincing retailer that you do qualify when you are not a regular customer is a royal PIA (fill out forms, sign them, fax them). I don't see how you can equate it to the HST where the only evidence the seller needs to provide is a valid HST number - and that is only when the buyer qualifies for ITCs.

In my first post above I was talking about how under the PST, contrary to the video in the OP, a retailer does not pay PST on his/her wholesale price and, therefore, PST does not get embedded step after step after step.

That is related to a wholesale/retailer relationship and not to a retailer/customer relationship that you brought up and, for which, is irrelevant to the point which remains: the PST did not go through 5 steps, as shown in the video, to continuously increase the cost of a good.

It is disingenuous, to say the least, of the creator of the original video to show a 5 step process of ever increasing costs when, in realty, this did not happen.

PST did not get passed along to this degree because the shoe was made in China, imported by a wholesaler who did not pay any PST, who had the retailer's PST certificate on file and then sold the shoes to the retailer without charging any PST so that the retailer would sell the shoes with PST to the final paying customer.

No five step process of escalating PST cost.

------------------------

Now, as for the rest: under GST/HST you still have to keep documentation for First Nations exemptions.

You have to not claim the ITC's on certain expenses if you are a medium/large company.

You have to watch out for the placement of supply rules if you are selling in different GST/HST regimes (although this was probably as complicated under PST rules).

You have to keep on file a GST/HST form if you sell substantively all of the assets of your business to another GST/HST registrant.

You have to properly document and file your GST/HST return if you are buying real property from another GST/HST registrant and don't want to pay the tax for cash flow purposes.

Selling other real property may or may not attract GST/HST depending on very specific circumstances which have bitten people in the ass on many occasion.

The point is: yes, GST/HST is a little bit easier for businesses to administer and deal with.

But the real reason we like the GST/HST so much is because we don't have to pay it (well, with some exceptions).

If the PST had this kind of bribery built in then businesses would find its archaic rules tolerable, to say the least.

That doesn't mean we should return to PST.

No doubt HST is better - but only by a small margin.

[Wilber]

I don't think so. Decisions like whether to adopt the HST are not made over night. I find it quite plausible that they had no serious intention of adopting the HST because of fears of public backlash until after the election when they decided to give it a second look when crunching the budget numbers. I can't prove it but you can't prove they were lying either.

Neither of us can prove anything but I find it much more plausible that they lied to get elected. I also find their "find tuning" cynical as well. In order for it to happen, you will have to re-elect them first.

Edited May 28, 2011 by Wilber

[TimG]

In order for it to happen, you will have to re-elect them first.

So what exactly is the NDP policy on the HST? Have the committed to scrapping it? Do you really think they would not follow through on the Libs promises if 1) the HST passes in June and 2) they get elected?

[msj]

Neither of us can prove anything but I find it much more plausible that they lied to get elected. I also find their "find tuning" cynical as well. In order for it to happen, you will have to re-elect them first.

I can't fault your lack of faith here, although you should apply it to the NDP who would find worse ways to tax us.

What bothers me, though, is how the federal CPC as got away with this.

If they didn't offer up the billions of dollars for transition then this would not have likely happened in the first place.

Do you think anyone who hates the HST gave much thought to this in the last federal election?

I don't think anyone did.

[TimG]

If they didn't offer up the billions of dollars for transition then this would not have likely happened in the first place.

Why should they catch heat? In the end it is the provincial government that makes the decision and they are the only on responsible for it.

[Handsome Rob]

I can't believe their lying faces telling us to vote in favour of this mess. If you don't run a business and you vote yes on this referendum, you're nothing but a fool.

1. What is going to replace the billion and a half from the feds?

2. What is going to replace the badly needed tax revenue from the HST?

3. What is the cost to repeal the HST and where is the guarantee it won't cost more than the added burden?

4. How can you guarantee that any of the above will be better off than status quo?

[msj]

Why should they catch heat? In the end it is the provincial government that makes the decision and they are the only on responsible for it.

With the bribery from the federal government they did it.

No bribe, no HST.

Oh, and I know that my local MP voted in the legislation at the federal level to bring in the HST in Ontario and BC.

Yes, he is only doing the "wishes" of the provincial legislatures.

But those legislatures are heavily bribed with that federal money.

To dismiss this is disingenuous.

I admit - I like the HST and really thought Bill Vander Zalm to be a goofball (well, I thought that since at least 1986).

But, your starting to have me come around to the "no" side.

Between the video lying about the extent of embedded PST in retail prices and your nonsense on this point I'm starting to think that the "yes" side lacks as much credibility as the "no" side.

But, I run a business and, therefore, expect to be one of the few "top quintile" earners who actually breaks even (like the second quintile in the video does) - I may pay more as a consumer but that is effectively cancelled out by what my business saves.

But we'll see. It's not all about me.....

[TimG]

Between the video lying about the extent of embedded PST in retail prices

So one factual error on a yes video compared to complete uninformed nonsense coming from no side and you seem to think they are equivalent?

your nonsense on this point

My nonsense? Because I think that people accusing others of lying should have evidence and that the bribe taker is ultimately the one responsible for the decision to take the bribe? Your analogy to bribes is also unreasonable since HST is good economic policy and it makes sense for the government to provide incentives for provinces to adopt good economic policies. The trouble is what is good economic policy is not necessarily good political policy and that is why the provincial government catches the heat.

[eyeball]

The only "message" you will be sending to politicians is that voters are morons.

What sort of message do you think it sends when the electorate keeps rolling over and accepts being lied to?

One message I get over and over again is that far too many of my fellow Canadians are little more than butt-kissing obsequious little sycophants. The only thing that would make them happier than living under the thumb of a dictator is to drag everyone else under it with them.

[msj]

So one factual error on a yes video compared to complete uninformed nonsense coming from no side and you seem to think they are equivalent?

They are getting to that stage.

I have heard a lot of ignorance on both sides of the issue.

I have just happened to point out two specific points of a particular trend.

My nonsense? Because I think that people accusing others of lying should have evidence and that the bribe taker is ultimately the one responsible for the decision to take the bribe? Your analogy to bribes is also unreasonable since HST is good economic policy and it makes sense for the government to provide incentives for provinces to adopt good economic policies. The trouble is what is good economic policy is not necessarily good political policy and that is why the provincial government catches the heat.

Your nonsense is not understanding the extent of a bribe from one level of government to another implicates the one making the bribe.

If one is unable to understand how fundamentally wrong something like bribery is, well, what's the point of discussing anything?

[eyeball]

The trouble is what is good economic policy is not necessarily good political policy and that is why the provincial government catches the heat.

You must think voters are morons too. Are you a politician by any chance?

[TimG]

If one is unable to understand how fundamentally wrong something like bribery is, well, what's the point of discussing anything?

I reject your claim that compensation for the costs of adopting the HST represents a bribe. Based on your definition of bribe any money given by the governments to change behaviour constitutes a bribe including:

1) Home renovation tax credits

2) Feed in tariff programs

3) R&D tax credits

4) Scholarships

I could go on. What you are doing is debasing the meaning of "bribe" by conflating it with things which are not really bribes.

Edited May 28, 2011 by TimG

[TimG]

You must think voters are morons too. Are you a politician by any chance?

The trouble with voters is the biggest complainer tends to be given the most credibility by voters. i.e. Van Der Zalm was completely dishonest in his anti-HST campaign yet he was given a pass because he was complaining about the government and that gave him "street cred" (so to speak) in the media and by the public. It seems that everyone forget what this was like when he was in charge.

This makes it virtually impossible to do anything constructive nowaways because the complainers always win. You see this trend everywhere.

Are voters morans? Generally not.

Edited May 28, 2011 by TimG

[eyeball]

The trouble with voters is the biggest complainer tends to be given the most credibility by voters. i.e. Van Der Zalm was completely dishonest in his anti-HST campaign yet he was given a pass because he was complaining about the government and that gave him "street cred" (so to speak) in the media and by the public. It seems that everyone forget what this was like when he was in charge.

This makes it virtually impossible to do anything constructive nowaways because the complainers always win. You see this trend everywhere.

Are voters morans? Generally not.

If voters are not morons then why should politicians be afraid of their backlash towards good fiscal policy? Why would complainers have anymore of an effect on a voting public that is generally intelligent?

[kimmy]

If voters are not morons then why should politicians be afraid of their backlash towards good fiscal policy? Why would complainers have anymore of an effect on a voting public that is generally intelligent?

I think the popularity of Bill Vander Zalm's campaign provides all the response required for these two questions.

-k

[Wilber]

The day after? Well it depends entirely on what you assume "formally" means. All of the information exchanged was just that: information exchanges. The type of stuff that has to be exchanged before a formal decision to negotiate on the HST is made.

In any case, the "I am voting against an economically good tax because I think the former leader lied about it" is the most childish argument I have seen in a long time.

The only "message" you will be sending to politicians is that voters are morons.

It was made public after the election that Campbell and Hansen went to Ottawa immediately after the election to negotiate the HST. Please don't tell me they had an epiphany the minute the poles closed.

It's a real dilemma. On the other hand you must vote to reward bad behavior if you want these changes to take effect, which is equally moronic and will do nothing but encourage further bad behavior. If they were willing to put these changes on the HST ballot and make them binding for any future government, that would go a long way toward me supporting it. Bottom line, I just don't trust these people.

[Wilber]

I can't fault your lack of faith here, although you should apply it to the NDP who would find worse ways to tax us.

I do, and those twits picking Dix as their leader has made the whole thing just that much worse. I have no faith in any of them.

What bothers me, though, is how the federal CPC as got away with this.

If they didn't offer up the billions of dollars for transition then this would not have likely happened in the first place.

Do you think anyone who hates the HST gave much thought to this in the last federal election?

I don't think anyone did.

Bothers me to. I wrote letters to my MP and editor of our local newspapers which said among other things, "if you are there to represent the provincial government in Ottawa instead of the wishes of your constituents, why do I need you?"

[Smallc]

So, do you think that the government should ever do something that the people don't want? Even if it's better than what the people want?

[eyeball]

If the Liberals really want to make the best out of this mess they could admit their fear of electorate backlashes. They could be honest and admit how often this sentiment probably influences public policy and more often than not results in bad policies, from political parties of all stripes. They could promise to never keep the hard truths and bitter pills out of sight and mind. They could try to implement or at least begin multi-party discussions including public forums on what some sort of truth in campaigning and governace act might look like, even in theory, just to get the ball rolling.

If people need to be educated about their responsibility to vote responsibly then so be it. This should be no less important an effort than introducing basic fiscal and economic education in grade school and for the same reason.

As Wilber says we are doing ourselves no favours at all by rewarding bad behaviour and voting for something that was brought about through such a disingenuous means. The long-term cost of sending that sort of message is I think, greater than the short-term cost of going back to the drawing board on the HST.

[TimG]

It was made public after the election that Campbell and Hansen went to Ottawa immediately after the election to negotiate the HST. Please don't tell me they had an epiphany the minute the poles closed.

cite?

It's a real dilemma. On the other hand you must vote to reward bad behavior if you want these changes to take effect, which is equally moronic and will do nothing but encourage further bad behavior.

Let's assume you come up with a cite and there actually is irrefutable evidence that the Liberals lied but did so because they feared that the uninformed public backlash. If the HST passes the message that will be sent is the voter will accept sensible policies that they were wrong to fear the backlash. If the HST is voted down the message sent will be that the voter will not accept sensible policies and that future governments shall never change anything ever - no matter how compelling the economic case because of fear of backlash.

IOW - I don't see the case you are making.

[Wilber]

So, do you think that the government should ever do something that the people don't want? Even if it's better than what the people want?

I think the government is there to represent the peoples wishes even if they aren't the best idea. They are not a separate entity from the people. We call those governments dictatorships.

[Wilber]

cite?

It's two year old news now but was all over the media at the time.

Let's assume you come up with a cite and there actually is irrefutable evidence that the Liberals lied but did so because they feared that the uninformed public backlash. If the HST passes the message that will be sent is the voter will accept sensible policies that they were wrong to fear the backlash. If the HST is voted down the message sent will be that the voter will not accept sensible policies and that future governments shall never change anything ever - no matter how compelling the economic case because of fear of backlash.

IOW - I don't see the case you are making.

The case I am making is that I don't trust these people to do anything that isn't binding. You can believe what you want.

[Smallc]

I think the government is there to represent the peoples wishes even if they aren't the best idea. They are not a separate entity from the people. We call those governments dictatorships.

Governments are not there to follow the will of the people into oblivion. It's because Canadian governments have enacted policies that were sometimes unpopular that we are oing as well as we are today. Look at the mess in the US and parts of Southern Europe because of politicians that blindly do what their constituents want. Governments are not simply there to do our bidding, they are there to steward and shepherd the security and prosperity of a country. Yes, governments have to be accountable to the people, and they will be, but the people are often irrational and uninformed. They certainly aren't always right.

[eyeball]

I think the government is there to represent the peoples wishes even if they aren't the best idea.

Thereby giving the public a chance to learn from it's own mistakes.

The road to enlightenment is and probably always will be painful.

[Wilber]

Governments are not there to follow the will of the people into oblivion. It's because Canadian governments have enacted policies that were sometimes unpopular that we are oing as well as we are today. Look at the mess in the US and parts of Southern Europe because of politicians that blindly do what their constituents want. Governments are not simply there to do our bidding, they are there to steward and shepherd the security and prosperity of a country. Yes, governments have to be accountable to the people, and they will be, but the people are often irrational and uninformed. They certainly aren't always right.

The people definately are not always right but government is still there to represent their wishes. It is certainly not government's duty to say one thing then do the opposite.