BC Referendum on HST

[TimG]

Sexual assault has a very clear legal definition that includes everything from unwanted touching to violent rape.

The legal definition rape was changed to sexual assult specifically because various activitists wanted to blur the distinction between rape and unwanted touching. The change was an exercise in pure propoganda. The net result is news reports on sexual assult are often meaningless because they don't tell people what really happened.

The feds bribery of the provinces for the HST implementation is more like a violent rape rather than an unwanted grope through six layers of winter clothing.

Complete nonsense. All of the incentive programs I described (including the HST incensive) are just that - perfectly legimate incentive programs offered by the government to everyone who does what the government wants.

IOW, you can call the HST incentives a bribe if you want but you are crazy if you think everyone should agree with your definition. You are doing nothing but manipulating the English language in order to score points. I am not interested in your games.

Edited May 29, 2011 by TimG

[msj]

The legal definition rape was changed to sexual assult specifically because various activitists wanted to blur the distinction between rape and unwanted touching. The change was an exercise in pure propoganda. The net result is news reports on sexual assult are often meaningless because they don't tell people what really happened.

For people who read only headlines the net result is they are misinformed.

For people like judges/juries the net result is an accurate way to deal with a particular crime.

Complete nonsense. All of the incentive programs I described (including the HST incensive) are just that - perfectly legimate incentive programs offered by the government to everyone who does what the government wants.

IOW, you can call the HST incentives a bribe if you want but you are crazy if you think everyone should agree with your definition. You are doing nothing but manipulating the English language in order to score points. I am not interested in your games.

For the HST it is nothing more than bribery.

The benefits of HST should sell itself to any intelligent person in the provincial government. Selling it to the electorate takes a little more persuading (and a much better job than what Campbell did).

Instead, it took a $1.6 billion "incentive" to get BC to do what it should have done at least 10 years ago.

The fact that the feds paid this "incentive" still implicates them as being part of the implementation of the HST.

If one doesn't like the HST then one should not only blame the BC Liberals but also the federal CPC's.

Yes, it really is that simple.

[Smallc]

Instead, it took a $1.6 billion "incentive" to get BC to do what it should have done at least 10 years ago.

The fact that the feds paid this "incentive" still implicates them as being part of the implementation of the HST.

The federal government has always paid a proportional amount for implementation of the HST.

[msj]

The federal government has always paid a proportional amount for implementation of the HST.

I know that.

It doesn't change the fact that the federal government is implicitly bringing in the HST in BC or any other province that it chooses to bribe.

Look, I support the HST despite the other fools who support it with ridiculous arguments.

But politically, the way it was brought in stinks.

I say that despite the fact that I would gladly vote for Gordon Campbell rather than Christy Clark. I'm part of that 9% minority who still likes the guy.

[fellowtraveller]

Governments are elected to govern but that doesn't give them a cart blanch to do anything they damn well want while telling people they are going to do something else

The first part of your sentence contradicts the second part.

Try again.

Start by thinking about the word 'govern'.

[fellowtraveller]

Do you think the federal govt would give Alberta a couple billion bucks for saving them all the aggravation of not needing a HST?

[bloodyminded]

The legal definition rape was changed to sexual assult specifically because various activitists wanted to blur the distinction between rape and unwanted touching.

A serious charge delivered in a declarative sentence; so I think you should expand a little on this.

Who were these "activists," and to what purpose did they wish to blur the lines?

[TimG]

A serious charge delivered in a declarative sentence; so I think you should expand a little on this.

I am surprised you dispute this. The term 'rape' carries a stigma for the victims. Women's rights activists pushed for a more generic term that would not have a special word for rape. The purpose was to mix rape in with other crimes and thereby eliminate the stigma that came with it. It was effective but the result is we never really know what happened in sexual assault cases because the media rarely provides enough details to know.

[eyeball]

Now you're blaming victims for the absence of vengeance our justice system. More to the point you're bemoaning the use of language that doesn't inspire the public to clamor for vengeance.

[bloodyminded]

I am surprised you dispute this. The term 'rape' carries a stigma for the victims. Women's rights activists pushed for a more generic term that would not have a special word for rape. The purpose was to mix rape in with other crimes and thereby eliminate the stigma that came with it. It was effective but the result is we never really know what happened in sexual assault cases because the media rarely provides enough details to know.

I think your final point, in and of itself, might have some merit. The rest seems dubious.

First of all, being a "rape" victim does not carry the stigma of being a "rapist," rightfully so, so I can't see why they'd wish to dilute the word's power. I don't think too many people genuinely look down on rape victims. I know I don't. Second, the term "sexual assault" has in fact unfairly stigmatized (in the public imagination) some offenders whose offenses are light-years away from "rape" or "child molestation"...which is in fact what I think most people feel is connoted by the term "sexual assault."

Again, what would women's rights advocates have to gain, in any way, from such a thing?

Finally, you still have not answered the claim; you've offered speculation presented as fact (or as "common sense," which you strongly imply)...but no evidence. Where's the evidence that the women's movement, or some "activist" part of it, was behind the general adoption of the "sexual assault" phrase?

Edited June 2, 2011 by bloodyminded

[TimG]

First of all, being a "rape" victim does not carry the stigma of being a "rapist," rightfully so, so I can't see why they'd wish to dilute the word's power.

How old are you? I ask because the debate over the words happened in the 70s and 80s. The word rape had a different meaning then than it does now. Now it is more likely to tar the perpetrator - not the victim. It was not always the case.

[bloodyminded]

How old are you? I ask because the debate over the words happened in the 70s and 80s. The word rape had a different meaning then than it does now. Now it is more likely to tar the perpetrator - not the victim. It was not always the case.

I'm 44.

"Sexual assault" has, to my understanding, repalced "rape" in the criminal code. So I get your point here.

But no one, and I mean no one, is opposed to the use of the word "rape" generally. Women's rights advocates use the word as a matter of course.

I think the real question is in sentencing; were rape charges more serious in, say, 1980, than are their equivalents now?

Edited June 2, 2011 by bloodyminded

[TimG]

I think the real question is in sentencing; were rape charges more serious in, say, 1980, than are their equivalents now?

Back in the 70s a women's sexual history could be brought up in court and a husband could not legally rape his wife. The world has changed a lot for the better in 40 years.

[bloodyminded]

Back in the 70s a women's sexual history could be brought up in court and a husband could not legally rape his wife. The world has changed a lot for the better in 40 years.

Oh yeah. We agree that far, for sure.

[August1991]

For the HST it is nothing more than bribery.

No, it's compensation for the cost of transition. These costs include shifts in bureaucracy, and also costs for those that lose their jobs. (When banks introduced ATM machines in the 1980s, many tellers lost their jobs. The GST is the same. It increases productivity because it makes some jobs redundant. it seems only fair to offer these people some compensation.)

----

BTW msj, as a busy accountant/headline scanner, you missed the main advantage of the HST. (No problemo. The video in the OP also missed it.)

The HST taxes almost all "consumption" directly with clear rules. The PST applies to a mix of income/consumption with various arbitrary exemptions.

In general, governments should tax us when we spend money, and not when we earn it. The HST/GST does this.

[Do I care how much Bill Gates or Ingvar Kamprad earns? If I think life is unfair, I am more concerned about how much Gates, Kamprad or their family members spend - not their earnings.]

Edited June 3, 2011 by August1991

[Pliny]

How old are you? I ask because the debate over the words happened in the 70s and 80s. The word rape had a different meaning then than it does now. Now it is more likely to tar the perpetrator - not the victim. It was not always the case.

I think they are planning on changing the word "rape" to "canola". I remember reading some headlines somewhere. I dunno, it was a long time ago.

[msj]

No, it's compensation for the cost of transition. These costs include shifts in bureaucracy, and also costs for those that lose their jobs. (When banks introduced ATM machines in the 1980s, many tellers lost their jobs. The GST is the same. It increases productivity because it makes some jobs redundant. it seems only fair to offer these people some compensation.)

You do realize that the HST will save BC money from having to administer its PST system and, yet, its the feds who are giving BC the money.

As for the jobs - you mean the people who will either go from the PST administration to the GST/HST administration or those who will somehow find themselves out of a job?

My understanding is not one person in PST is being laid off over this.

----

BTW msj, as a busy accountant/headline scanner, you missed the main advantage of the HST. (No problemo. The video in the OP also missed it.)

The HST taxes almost all "consumption" directly with clear rules. The PST applies to a mix of income/consumption with various arbitrary exemptions.

In general, governments should tax us when we spend money, and not when we earn it. The HST/GST does this.

Just because I do not chose to mention this does not mean I have "missed" it.

Nevertheless, people like you and Tim G truly do not understand how difficult the GST/HST can be.

Is it a little bit simpler than having GST and PST?

Yes.

But not by much in far too many instances.

I can say this as I am currently writing to the CRA to explain how and why they screwed up a HST rebate I filed for a client to recover the BC portion of HST.

All because some idiot bureaucrat can't understand the forms that some other bureaucrat has created to make the process "work."

[August1991]

Just because I do not chose to mention this does not mean I have "missed" it.

Fine. Let us agree that the HST/GST is a good tax because it taxes people when they spend money, and not when they earn it.

If Bill Gates earns alot of money, it is his right. But if we are concerned with fairness, we should look at his family's spending of that money.

The GST/HST is a VAT that taxes spending. It doesn't tax earnings. People can avoid the GST/HST if they save.

----

msj, I know that I am simplifying alot but it seems to me that the HST should be explained this way.

[msj]

Fine. Let us agree that the HST/GST is a good tax because it taxes people when they spend money, and not when they earn it.

If Bill Gates earns alot of money, it is his right. But if we are concerned with fairness, we should look at his family's spending of that money.

The GST/HST is a VAT that taxes spending. It doesn't tax earnings. People can avoid the GST/HST if they save.

----

msj, I know that I am simplifying alot but it seems to me that the HST should be explained this way.

Sure it should - and maybe the top 5% of income earners would nod their head in agreement.

To a guy like me, who, without incorporation, would be paying tax at tax rates exceeding 40%, it sounds great.

To a guy who pays tax at 25%, or less, it sounds like a way to make the system less progressive - i.e. people like me, the "rich," get lower income taxes because people like him, the "poor," pay more in VAT.

So, no, I don't think it is all that effective for the 95% of people who make less than $60,000.

Edited June 5, 2011 by msj

[Pliny]

Sure it should - and maybe the top 5% of income earners would nod their head in agreement.

To a guy like me, who, without incorporation, would be paying tax at tax rates exceeding 40%, it sounds great.

To a guy who pays tax at 25%, or less, it sounds like a way to make the system less progressive - i.e. people like me, the "rich," get lower income taxes because people like him, the "poor," pay more in VAT.

So, no, I don't think it is all that effective for the 95% of people who make less than $60,000.

Being an accountant I'm sure you understand numbers quite well but the origin and flow of capital is not contained in the balance sheet.

We have tofirst of all get over the fact that implementation of the HST is a tax shift. This is what you seem to imply in this post but I know you understand otherwise. The anti-HST platform is essentially based on the idea that this is a tax shift from corporations to consumers.

There is only one pocket for the taxman. The lie that corporations pay taxes must be dismissed.

A company can only exist if it makes a profit above all costs including taxes. If they can't do that they close their doors. That's called death if it were a person. All of their taxes and other costs are factored in to their costs in order for them to stay alive - make a profit. If taxes go up their costs go up and whatever service or product they supply society goes up. If taxes go down they may or may not give up the realized surplus but if competition is healthy they eventually will. Becasue someone will wish to gain customers by lowering their price and others will not wish to lose any.

In the end the consumer pays or saves all the differences in tax increases and decreases regarding consumption.

If you are poor you are supposed to get tax rebates. hat should eliminate any need for "progression" in the adminstration of taxes.

It irks me that so many people will listen to that BS about tax shifts. The left wishes to tax the rich and demands we need more taxes but firstly it is unfair to tax a segment of the population above the rest of the population. Finally we have a tax that the rich and the right wing can stand behind with some consideration for the poor in rebates. The left and those who look no deeper than the superficial apparency that this is a tax shift wish to kill it.

[Michael Hardner]

It irks me that so many people will listen to that BS about tax shifts. The left wishes to tax the rich and demands we need more taxes but firstly it is unfair to tax a segment of the population above the rest of the population.

Well, what about the fact that the rates for the rich have dropped since the mid 20-th century ? Can we call that a shift ?

It's unfair to tax a segment of the population above the rest ? Why ? Government pays more attention to their needs than that of the average citizen - how about if we call it extra fees for extra service ?

Finally we have a tax that the rich and the right wing can stand behind with some consideration for the poor in rebates. The left and those who look no deeper than the superficial apparency that this is a tax shift wish to kill it.

"Some consideration" - how thoughtful !

[msj]

Being an accountant I'm sure you understand numbers quite well but the origin and flow of capital is not contained in the balance sheet.

We have tofirst of all get over the fact that implementation of the HST is a tax shift. This is what you seem to imply in this post but I know you understand otherwise. The anti-HST platform is essentially based on the idea that this is a tax shift from corporations to consumers.

There is only one pocket for the taxman. The lie that corporations pay taxes must be dismissed.

A company can only exist if it makes a profit above all costs including taxes. If they can't do that they close their doors. That's called death if it were a person. All of their taxes and other costs are factored in to their costs in order for them to stay alive - make a profit. If taxes go up their costs go up and whatever service or product they supply society goes up. If taxes go down they may or may not give up the realized surplus but if competition is healthy they eventually will. Becasue someone will wish to gain customers by lowering their price and others will not wish to lose any.

In the end the consumer pays or saves all the differences in tax increases and decreases regarding consumption.

If you are poor you are supposed to get tax rebates. hat should eliminate any need for "progression" in the adminstration of taxes.

It irks me that so many people will listen to that BS about tax shifts. The left wishes to tax the rich and demands we need more taxes but firstly it is unfair to tax a segment of the population above the rest of the population. Finally we have a tax that the rich and the right wing can stand behind with some consideration for the poor in rebates. The left and those who look no deeper than the superficial apparency that this is a tax shift wish to kill it.

I just don't buy this line of argument.

My company pays income taxes because I make enough money (and live relatively modestly for my earnings) to ensure it pays income taxes.

I conduct business in a competitive environment so I really do think that when I pay income tax my peers/competitors do too and I doubt very much that such costs would automatically be passed along to our clients.

Frankly, I think this is a theoretical argument spoken by people who really are clueless when it comes to business.

[Pliny]

Well, what about the fact that the rates for the rich have dropped since the mid 20-th century ? Can we call that a shift ?

90% is insane Michael. They had to admit it. But as I said there is really only one pie. They can take it from wherever it is, obviously they can't take it form where it isn't. All they do is shift where they take it from depending upon where it moves to.

I will say that incomes are starting to disappear. Companies are leaning towards subcontracting

instead of hiring. The cost, taxwise and with entitlements is becoming too much to bare new sources of revenue for government have to be found. I know - a carbon tax would be a good idea!!

It's unfair to tax a segment of the population above the rest ? Why ?

If you have two sons are you going to say one son is making more than the other so I will just take part of the first sons income and give it to the second son because that is more fair. None of them will be allowed to make more than the other. One may decide he is just going to not make an income any more. Wouldn't it be more fair if the one son provided what he chose depending upon circumstance in real time? If his income goes then there is none to divvy up and both suffer. If one could have saved and then ran into a time of no income he could have maybe supported his brother as well but he is less likely to save or want to share after he has been forced to pay, especially when he knows his brother stopped working and decided to live off his income.

Government pays more attention to their needs than that of the average citizen - how about if we call it extra fees for extra service ?

If someone has no friends, no family, no community and you view society as entirely uncharitable and people as cold and uncaring beyond their selfish selves then yes, I agree. Is that how you view people and society?

[Pliny]

I just don't buy this line of argument.

My company pays income taxes because I make enough money (and live relatively modestly for my earnings) to ensure it pays income taxes.

I conduct business in a competitive environment so I really do think that when I pay income tax my peers/competitors do too and I doubt very much that such costs would automatically be passed along to our clients.

No. You have to realize you are losing clients first. Then you will find out why. If it is because someone is paying lesser taxes than you I think you would be upset.

Frankly, I think this is a theoretical argument spoken by people who really are clueless when it comes to business.

Good for you. Excellent rebuttal.

[Michael Hardner]

If you have two sons are you going to say one son is making more than the other so I will just take part of the first sons income and give it to the second son because that is more fair. None of them will be allowed to make more than the other. One may decide he is just going to not make an income any more. Wouldn't it be more fair if the one son provided what he chose depending upon circumstance in real time? If his income goes then there is none to divvy up and both suffer. If one could have saved and then ran into a time of no income he could have maybe supported his brother as well but he is less likely to save or want to share after he has been forced to pay, especially when he knows his brother stopped working and decided to live off his income.

I don't see what your analogy does except change the situation from taxpayers to two sons in a family. People don't save, though, we know that.

If someone has no friends, no family, no community and you view society as entirely uncharitable and people as cold and uncaring beyond their selfish selves then yes, I agree. Is that how you view people and society?

You're saying that people need to rely on their friends, family and community (i.e. not taxpayers). That doesn't work. The depression, I guess, should have killed off those too stupid to save for it ? We ruined the forces of nature by providing more soup kitchens ? Your way was tried, and it failed. Most people don't plan ahead enough, don't or can't save enough to take them through a big economic dip so we get the money elsewhere. The system just works. If you can provide a better one then go ahead. The Communists, at least, can claim that their system has never been truly tried but pure laissez-faire was tried.