BC Referendum on HST

[dre]

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.

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.

I dont agree with that at all. It makes way more sense to tax income than consumption. Its always more fair.

[TimG]

I dont agree with that at all. It makes way more sense to tax income than consumption. Its always more fair.

The tax system is not just about catering different variations of the word 'fair'. It is about creating the right incentives. We want people to save and invest so taxing income less accomplishes that goal. We also must have a tax system where everyone has a stake. A tax system where only a minority pay any taxes is a receipe for bad government because the people voting for policies don't have to pay for them. Lastly, we want a broad tax base which means income and consumption (including services) should be taxed. It makes no sense to rely on one or two types of taxes and it makes no sense to exempt services. Edited June 6, 2011 by TimG

[Pliny]

Soup Kitchens

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.

Do you consider it fair? That's the question.

You're saying that people need to rely on their friends, family and community (i.e. not taxpayers). That doesn't work.

It's called co-operation and harmony. You are saying people will not contribute to either. So you do feel people are basically cold and calculating and unless you hold a gun to their heads they won't do what you feel they should.

The depression, I guess, should have killed off those too stupid to save for it?

If there had not been monetary mischief from governments fiddling around with the economy as was so popular at the time with different forms of Statism feeling they should run the economy people would have gotten themselves out of any depression within a few years. But frankly, I don't believe the great depression would have happened at all if government had not been playing with the monetary supply.

We ruined the forces of nature by providing more soup kitchens ?

All of those soup kitchens were not run by government. They were run by volunteers and charitable

organizations. According to you that's impossible without government.

Soup KitchensA soup kitchen, a bread line, or a meal center is a place where food is offered to the hungry for free or at a reasonably low price. Frequently located in lower-income neighborhoods, they are often staffed by volunteer organizations, such as church groups or community groups. Soup kitchens sometimes obtain food from a food bank for free or at a low price, because they are considered a charity.

Your way was tried, and it failed.

I think it was so successful, so powerful, productive and rich, that someone thought they should have control and rule over it.

Just because you wouldn't share or don't feel any compassion without a gun held to your head (that seems to be your opinion of people and I assume you are a people) doesn't mean that is the norm although government goes a long way toward turning citizens into that.

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.

Like all Ponzi schemes they work for awhile. The system is not sustainable. You just happen to be of a generation that will just catch the cusp of having to pay the piper. The next generation will have to watch it collapse or tear it down. If they watch it collapse they will wind up slaves to tyranny. If they tear it down and limit government they will remain free. It will be an interesting time.

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.

You keep saying that but where was it tried? The US? It is probably the closest and all you see is abject failure?

The US is not today in trouble because of it's people. It is in trouble because of it's government.

Edited June 6, 2011 by Pliny

[Pliny]

I dont agree with that at all. It makes way more sense to tax income than consumption. Its always more fair.

....oh boy....It's fairer to just take out of his hand whatever is considered fair by the takers from his earnings rather than leave it to his choices in consumption? And where he could perhaps save anickel here and there if he chose by not consuming. An income tax is one of the worst forms of taxation and is why we didn't have one until the Great War. Government never could give up that entitlement.

Edited June 6, 2011 by Pliny

[Michael Hardner]

Soup Kitchens

Do you consider it fair? That's the question.

It produces a fair result, so it's fair. Actually, with your family analogy the brother who is doing better could conceivably be fine with contributing more.

It's called co-operation and harmony. You are saying people will not contribute to either. So you do feel people are basically cold and calculating and unless you hold a gun to their heads they won't do what you feel they should.

Social services can't operate adequately with volunteer contributions alone. I'm not going to succumb to your wording of this, though.

If there had not been monetary mischief from governments fiddling around with the economy as was so popular at the time with different forms of Statism feeling they should run the economy people would have gotten themselves out of any depression within a few years. But frankly, I don't believe the great depression would have happened at all if government had not been playing with the monetary supply.

Everything I remember reading about this points to rampant stock market speculation that brought the crash on.

All of those soup kitchens were not run by government. They were run by volunteers and charitable

organizations. According to you that's impossible without government.

It's definitely less effective without government.

I think it was so successful, so powerful, productive and rich, that someone thought they should have control and rule over it.

Just because you wouldn't share or don't feel any compassion without a gun held to your head (that seems to be your opinion of people and I assume you are a people) doesn't mean that is the norm although government goes a long way toward turning citizens into that.

Like all Ponzi schemes they work for awhile. The system is not sustainable. You just happen to be of a generation that will just catch the cusp of having to pay the piper. The next generation will have to watch it collapse or tear it down. If they watch it collapse they will wind up slaves to tyranny. If they tear it down and limit government they will remain free. It will be an interesting time.

As opposed to the Ponzi scheme that was the unregulated stock market of the 1920s ? Was that sustainable ? The system doesn't have to collapse - there is lots of wealth out there. It has been retooled many times and it will again.

If it gets really bad, then the threat of Communism tends to make the investment class realize the depth of the crisis.

You keep saying that but where was it tried? The US? It is probably the closest and all you see is abject failure?

Several Anglophile countries from the industrial revolution to the crash, generally. I'm speaking generally but we have to start somewhere.

The US is not today in trouble because of it's people. It is in trouble because of it's government.

The US rose to greatness because of its government and its people. Pick a time when the US is/was at its peak and you can find government support of the American dream behind those successes.

[Pliny]

It produces a fair result, so it's fair. Actually, with your family analogy the brother who is doing better could conceivably be fine with contributing more.

And who shall be the one that decides fairness? How much someone doesn't need?

You're scenario is ok if all things remain in a proportionally static state. That is your income is always the same, the circumstances of your living remain the same and government revenues remain the same and the economy remains the same. And in truth this is the goal of a statist government. A state of equilibrium in all things but the State. In order to do that it must have ultimate control of the economy. Do you think it knows the circumstance of every individual or cares that their needs will vary? Once it has ultimate power, as in the totally socialist state, only the the State is important and the pogroms can start.

The State in a democracy is "progressive" and it inevitably will decide it's share of your income should be bigger than your share and ultimately those they used to judge fairness are undeserving. If you believe democracy will keep it at bay you are mistaken. Once the entitlements and dependence upon the State is ingrained there is only collapse or counter-forces that will reverse them. An instability that the State will not tolerate in it's quest for the static society.

Social services can't operate adequately with volunteer contributions alone. I'm not going to succumb to your wording of this, though.

You mean there will still be some poor people around? Take a look we are in the middle of a war on poverty that isn't making any headway.

Everything I remember reading about this points to rampant stock market speculation that brought the crash on.

I recommend "The Great Depression" by Murray Rothbard. The government would not like it if there were any responsibility on their shoulders - after all they are trying to create a proportionally static society where things like that don't happen - it has to be something else????

That people don't know what purpose speculation serves in an economy tells me that they have a narrow view of it - and in their view it is all bad. The State has a cure for it. It's called wage and price controls. The result of the policy of wage and price controls is non-production resulting in shortages, line ups and a black market, if that is preferrable to a short corrective period of speculation then; hey! What else can be said?

Speculation does indeed cause a problem when it is fed by easy money, easy credit and creates a boom far beyond where it should ever go. So we have to look where easy money and easy credit that sustains a speculative event beyond it's usefulness occurs.

Greed has existed for all time. Speculative bubbles occur occasionally. Greed may drive it but the availability of easy money and easy credit must grease it or it seizes up in short order.

It's definitely less effective without government.

That's why poverty has all but disappeared, I suppose? Although I hear it is still a problem.

Did you watch the latest Stossel show on the war on poverty and how a minimum wage and welfare do nothing to eliminate but encourage poverty? One guy said, My mother never made over $20,000/yr in her life and never bettered herself because she was deathly afraid of losing her "benefits".

This woman never had confidence she could rise out of her poverty. She lived her life in fear with the threat of losing her "entitlements" held over her head. Her life reflects the static state of society that government prefers.

As opposed to the Ponzi scheme that was the unregulated stock market of the 1920s ? Was that sustainable ? The system doesn't have to collapse - there is lots of wealth out there. It has been retooled many times and it will again.

Right, Michael. We need more regulation against greed. That is the problem. We're our own worst enemies. The poor however are not greedy at all. That's impossible, isn't it? Only rich people are greedy!

Greed sort of takes on a different form for the poor - it's called "victimhood". Once they are victims they can lay claim to society's surplus, and society has only its self to blame. It's then a problem of human behavior not government who determines the rich and the victim alike - using one against the other to persuade the populace of their importance in equalizing the wealth. Playing the socially just and reasoned third party that is above it all. I don't believe they even see what they are doing.

If it gets really bad, then the threat of Communism tends to make the investment class realize the depth of the crisis.

Communism is dead. There will be no revolution. We are past the point where the State can be divested of its power by the people. Economic collapse is the only thing that will divest it of its power and what rises out of the ashes is any-one's guess - whether it is tyranny or freedom for the individual is the question.

Since a society is never static - nothing is really, there is always change of some sort, government that wishes to create a static state must be in error. You prefer the static state and it can only be made so through a constant pressure, a force that resists all change.

This is your wish for us all. But change will always win over any unbalancing force. Nature as well works towards an equilibrium better we understand the forces of nature and use that than the forces of government that aggrandizes itself at the expense of society.

Several Anglophile countries from the industrial revolution to the crash, generally. I'm speaking generally but we have to start somewhere.

England perhaps best understood the role of money and the market economy, leaving it mostly to it's own devices. Of course, all other nations, France and Spain included, overwhelmed them in Empire and in wealth creation - The British Empire was doomed because of it's position on the economy. Both it and America had no chance of surviving or becoming wealthy nations whatsoever. It was only after 1913 that the US could realize it's full potential and of course the last forty or fifty years once we trashed the gold standard altogether was where it could really excel. Today wealth knows no bounds, the land of milk and honey is upon us. This is Nirvana.

The US rose to greatness because of its government and its people. Pick a time when the US is/was at its peak and you can find government support of the American dream behind those successes.

Like the recent housing bubble? Everyone should own a house said the government.

The US was at it's peak around 1850. Although you decry it's imperialism in the 1900's you believe it to be part of it's greatness - that part of it was government, the creation of wealth was the people's part of it. It's government is increasingly running the society and will make it static.

Edited June 7, 2011 by Pliny

[msj]

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.

Nonsense.

Businesses do pay taxes which is why they bitch about them so much.

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.

You fail to understand that in my business there are other factors that dictate the prices that I can charge: demand for a professionally prepared tax return, increased complexity in the tax system, supply of competent tax preparers, demand/supply of tax preparation software etc....

All of these have a bigger impact on how much I charge and how much people will pay than whether or not my corporation pays 13.5% tax or 17.6% tax (being a small CCPC in BC).

I doubt other businesses are all that different except for monopolies, oligopolies and cartels.

The market sets prices and businesses (in competitive industries) pay taxes and, therefore, business people whine about taxes as pathetically as those "lefties" you bitch about.

[TimG]

You fail to understand that in my business there are other factors that dictate the prices that I can charge: demand for a professionally prepared tax return

When the HST came in my accountant simply added another 7% onto his bill, however, most of his customers are businesses that get to claim ITCs so it was not a big deal.

Every business is different. Some businesses can raise prices and will. Others cannot and the money will mean less money for capital investments or employees. Others will simply go under because their business was marginal to begin with. Others will reduce dividends which (depending on the company) will reduce investment returns for retirees.

No matter how you cut business taxes end up coming out of the pockets of consumers. The only justification for business taxes are to capture taxes from foreign owned corporations.

[msj]

When the HST came in my accountant simply added another 7% onto his bill, however, most of his customers are businesses that get to claim ITCs so it was not a big deal.

Every business is different. Some businesses can raise prices and will. Others cannot and the money will mean less money for capital investments or employees. Others will simply go under because their business was marginal to begin with. Others will reduce dividends which (depending on the company) will reduce investment returns for retirees.

No matter how you cut business taxes end up coming out of the pockets of consumers. The only justification for business taxes are to capture taxes from foreign owned corporations.

Once again you are missing the point: my prices are set by market forces first and foremost.

I never cared about paying PST on my computers and supplies. It was a cost of business.

I am not, all of a sudden, reducing my prices because I don't pay PST anymore and many of my clients are GST/HST registrants so charging HST is irrelevant to them anyway.

When the feds brought in the Home Renovation tax credit it was a big (albeit temporary) boost for business. Now, that did something for my prices since it increased demand for my services.

If they raised my corporate income tax rate a few points or brought back the PST I doubt that it would lead me to charge my clients anymore than my usual 2% to 5% increase per year.

Why? Because my prices are set by a market which sets prices on factors that are more important than a piddly tax like the PST or a piddly increase in business taxes.

Do I like paying business taxes? No, of course not.

But I do pay them because I make my money based on prices set by the free market (with a little help from idiot policies from an idiot government in Ottawa).

Edited June 10, 2011 by msj

[wolfd]

It most definitely is a tax shift. Here is what former BC Liberal Finance Minister Carole Taylor had to say about it:

“This particular tax takes the tax off businesses – it takes $1.8-billion off of businesses – and puts it on consumers, But I think the bigger issue is that [Premier Gordon Campbell] promised that they would not – they would not – do the harmonization of the sales tax. And then right after the election, decided to do it.”

Ms Taylor left cabinet due to her ex boss Gordo's lying ways.

Edited June 14, 2011 by wolfd

[Pliny]

Nonsense.

Businesses do pay taxes which is why they bitch about them so much.

I think as you point out they bitch about them so much because of the paperwork you do as an accountant.

You fail to understand that in my business there are other factors that dictate the prices that I can charge: demand for a professionally prepared tax return, increased complexity in the tax system, supply of competent tax preparers, demand/supply of tax preparation software etc....

All of these have a bigger impact on how much I charge and how much people will pay than whether or not my corporation pays 13.5% tax or 17.6% tax (being a small CCPC in BC).

I doubt other businesses are all that different except for monopolies, oligopolies and cartels.

The market sets prices and businesses (in competitive industries) pay taxes and, therefore, business people whine about taxes as pathetically as those "lefties" you bitch about.

All of those factors are costs that dictate the price to consumers. If you think the taxes are piddly try having a no HST sale. It's only a little more paperwork for you.

[eyeball]

Ms Taylor left cabinet due to her ex boss Gordo's lying ways.

And every conniving scheme the new boss has used to get this tax passed has only reinforced my reasons for voting against it.

I'm actually all for increasing consumption taxes but I'd want to see a corresponding cut in my income tax. Perhaps the next boss will see fit to discuss these sorts of tax reforms before the next general election instead of after it.

Another reform I'd like to see in BC is the way referendums are handled. We clearly need a process that is completely independent from the government of the day. If this is what the Liberals think passes for direct democracy they need a complete attitude adjustment.

[Pliny]

It most definitely is a tax shift. Here is what former BC Liberal Finance Minister Carole Taylor had to say about it:

“This particular tax takes the tax off businesses – it takes $1.8-billion off of businesses – and puts it on consumers, But I think the bigger issue is that [Premier Gordon Campbell] promised that they would not – they would not – do the harmonization of the sales tax. And then right after the election, decided to do it.”

Ms Taylor left cabinet due to her ex boss Gordo's lying ways.

It saves businesses in BC $114 million in time spent in attending to the collection and remittance of the PST. That's $114 million that can be invested or remains in the economy. A small amount perhaps that we can ignore.

How is it a tax shift? Corporations were paying 1.8 billion in taxes that now the consumer pays? Where did the corporations get that 1.8 billion dollars from? They got it from you. Whether corporations get it from you and give it to the government or you give it directly to the government you are still paying it. On paper it can look like a tax shift. In reality there is only one pocket. I would think that you would be happy to see that the tax is now more transparent.

Who's lying when they are calling it a tax shift? It's just a big shell game.

Edited June 15, 2011 by Pliny

[Pliny]

And every conniving scheme the new boss has used to get this tax passed has only reinforced my reasons for voting against it.

It is your job responsibility, as a citizen, to remain ignorant. They will take care of things, as is your wish, and grant you favours as is your wish, but it seems they don't relinquish the primary job responsibilities of being a citizen.

Old bosses, new bosses they are all just doing us a big favour out of the goodness of their hearts. They never seem to peer too far into the future to view the consequences fo their actions - being repsonsible citizens first.

Edited June 15, 2011 by Pliny

[ToadBrother]

It most definitely is a tax shift. Here is what former BC Liberal Finance Minister Carole Taylor had to say about it:

“This particular tax takes the tax off businesses – it takes $1.8-billion off of businesses – and puts it on consumers, But I think the bigger issue is that [Premier Gordon Campbell] promised that they would not – they would not – do the harmonization of the sales tax. And then right after the election, decided to do it.”

Ms Taylor left cabinet due to her ex boss Gordo's lying ways.

And yet most jurisdictions that have any kind of sales tax have shifted to VATs. Yes, there is a shift, but at the same time the PST was a monster. People seem to get tied up in the fact that the HST, like the GST before it, extended to a greater list of goods and services, but seem ignorant of the fact that the PST is an awful tax from an administrative point of view. It's rules were long and esoteric, burdensome both to government and to business. Yes, your kid got that pair of sneakers tax free, but part of the price you paid inevitably went to the business's processing of PST.

[dre]

And yet most jurisdictions that have any kind of sales tax have shifted to VATs. Yes, there is a shift, but at the same time the PST was a monster. People seem to get tied up in the fact that the HST, like the GST before it, extended to a greater list of goods and services, but seem ignorant of the fact that the PST is an awful tax from an administrative point of view. It's rules were long and esoteric, burdensome both to government and to business. Yes, your kid got that pair of sneakers tax free, but part of the price you paid inevitably went to the business's processing of PST.

Well then harmonize the tax but exempt the same goods and services as before. You still get rid of the administrative hassle.

[msj]

I think as you point out they bitch about them so much because of the paperwork you do as an accountant.

All of those factors are costs that dictate the price to consumers. If you think the taxes are piddly try having a no HST sale. It's only a little more paperwork for you.

You still don't get it: costs don't dictate price; markets do.

If your costs are $100 and you can live on $100 then you may charge $200.

I bill based on the market so if my costs are $100 and I can live on $100 then I will charge $500 because that is what the market will bear.

[ToadBrother]

Well then harmonize the tax but exempt the same goods and services as before. You still get rid of the administrative hassle.

First of all, there's an argument to be made that exemptions are unfair. Why should one type of business be obliged to collect and remit the tax, but another type not? Second of all, too many exemptions and you're right back where the PST was.

If you had ever been through a PST audit, you'd hate the tax as much as I do. It's an awful awful tax, possibly one of the worst taxes ever invented for its complexity and fundamental unfairness.

[Wilber]

How is it a tax shift? Corporations were paying 1.8 billion in taxes that now the consumer pays? Where did the corporations get that 1.8 billion dollars from? They got it from you. Whether corporations get it from you and give it to the government or you give it directly to the government you are still paying it. On paper it can look like a tax shift. In reality there is only one pocket. I would think that you would be happy to see that the tax is now more transparent.

If it's not a tax shift, why is it costing me more?

[dre]

First of all, there's an argument to be made that exemptions are unfair. Why should one type of business be obliged to collect and remit the tax, but another type not? Second of all, too many exemptions and you're right back where the PST was.

If you had ever been through a PST audit, you'd hate the tax as much as I do. It's an awful awful tax, possibly one of the worst taxes ever invented for its complexity and fundamental unfairness.

Iv been through an audit. I used to own a video rental store, and yes it was a hassle. Nothing major though... I thought all the payroll crap was worse.

And exempting things like food and clothing from the tax makes good sense... for the same reason they were PST exempted.

[Pliny]

If it's not a tax shift, why is it costing me more?

You obviously paid the PST and now you see a broader application of the VAT so you believe you are paying more. Corporations do not get their money out of thin air. They get it from consumers that buy their products. Then they pay their taxes. Something many people think is a tax on corporations. Instead of the tax being invisible in the cost of the product when you paid for it, it's now on the receipt for you to see.

[Pliny]

You still don't get it: costs don't dictate price; markets do.

If your costs are $100 and you can live on $100 then you may charge $200.

I bill based on the market so if my costs are $100 and I can live on $100 then I will charge $500 because that is what the market will bear.

If your costs are $100 and you can live on $100 you must charge minimally $200 to live. If your taxes amount to 50% of your income then you must make an extra $100 for the Government in order for you to net $100 - now you must charge minimally $300 for your product. If someone can live on $50 then they can undercut your price. They only have to make $50 for the government

Markets won't produce anything when the costs of production exceed the price people are willing to pay for it.

You are charging $500 and their is still a demand for your product, the market will, as you say, bear that price. Why? Is the market really setting the price? There are a few distortions in your market price.

Do you have guidelines from an accounting agency on pricing? You know, someone who says, "If you are an accountant you should be charging within these specified parameters for your services." A lot of professions, trades, etc. have associations or unions that will demand you charge

a minimum price for your service. You can charge anything you like above that. You are despised if you undercut your colleagues. That's not really the market setting the price. It's more of a cartel and an entitlement, an earned right, you went through the cost of training, your skills are specific and now you deserve to make at least a good living whatever that is at the time.

Government demands people do their taxes and they all have to pay the price. Will the market set the price in that case? No. You have a mandatory service that governments demand of all people. Governments dictatorial requirement to file has a lot to do with the fact you can charge $500 for your service and as tax laws get more complicated the more people will be required to use your service. It is an illusion to think that markets are the sole factor setting prices. Because, you charge $500 and another guy charges $505 you think the market is setting the price - it does to a degree but in the case of taxation the government creates all of the demand for you. It isn't what the market will bear, it is what is charged for a service government has made mandatory and that is a distortion in the determination of the market price.

You can say all these factors are what the market is today and you could be right. But it really isn't a market, it's a bunch of special interests demanding government determine prices and wages for them through legislation or to even create a place for them in the market.

[msj]

And we are brought back to what I said to begin with back at post #97: Frankly, I think this is a theoretical argument spoken by people who really are clueless when it comes to business.

Pliny, you might think you know something about business or economics, but you really don't.

No, really, you have no real world experience.

Yes, businesses really do pay taxes which is why they bitch about them so much.

Yes, businesses charge whatever the market will bear in order to make money.

That's called reality.

Maybe you should try being in business and see how your little theories work in practice.

[Pliny]

And we are brought back to what I said to begin with back at post #97: Frankly, I think this is a theoretical argument spoken by people who really are clueless when it comes to business.

Pliny, you might think you know something about business or economics, but you really don't.

No, really, you have no real world experience.

Yes, businesses charge whatever the market will bear in order to make money.

That's called reality.

Maybe you should try being in business and see how your little theories work in practice.

I am in business. My little theories don't work in practice.

Repeating your post #97 means you would prefer to ignore what I am saying or you don't understand it.

There is a whole ideological structure behind "democracy", it's taxation methods and the fact it cannot, due to it's nature, do anything but progressively encroach upon society and set the rules that make their little theories work, in their favour, and my little theories not work, as they do not aid and abet their objectives.

Yes, businesses really do pay taxes which is why they bitch about them so much.

Certainly, they would prefer to keep the money they give to government but the point is they get it all from the consumer.

Your position exists primarily because government needs certain financial information from it's citizens and their activities so they can levy taxes where the money is fairly.

The activity and cost generated in doing that is horrendous. For instance, you are able to charge $500 for a service because you think there is a demand from the market for it that warrants your price.

Whereas, without all the government regulations and complexity, plus the fact that a public education fails the average citizen, it would be a simple matter of bookkeeping. Of course, large corporations and businesses would need a finance department to track the money flows just like government does for the country. Only the government's motive isn't profit. It's motive is profit/sharing.

Certainly being instructed in all that government regulation and preparing financial records for them to their specifications creates a ready market for you in which you can prosper.

Edited June 17, 2011 by Pliny

[Wilber]

You obviously paid the PST and now you see a broader application of the VAT so you believe you are paying more. Corporations do not get their money out of thin air. They get it from consumers that buy their products. Then they pay their taxes. Something many people think is a tax on corporations. Instead of the tax being invisible in the cost of the product when you paid for it, it's now on the receipt for you to see.

I am now paying PST on a lot of services that gain little or nothing from the switch to HST. I am paying more.