Changes to GST

[dre]

I really don't think people really know what they are talking about. This is Canada - not the US.

The corporate tax rates didn't start to go down until the early 2000's and are just reaching the end of the downward cycle. The cuts have been very slowly implemented.

GST came in in 1991 and has been an important part of reducing our federal debt.

In BC we have had a PST since the 1940's and then the HST since July, 2010 and now the PST again in April, 2013.

Income taxes generally went up through the 1970;s, 80's, and 90's (capital gains started to get taxed after 1972, then they went through many changes to eliminate things like principal residence exemption for 2 homes per couple to 1, take the lifetime capital gains exemption away in 1995 etc....)

The 1990's in Canada are not remembered that fondly as being a great time with the increased taxation (remember tax brackets were not indexed between 1990 and 2000).

We didn't really start to see meaningful income tax cuts until 2001 through to 2005. Only seniors have seen meaningful income tax cuts since that time with pension splitting.

Yes, Mulroney did lower some tax rates (and eliminate tax brackets) but compared to the clawbacks implemented (EI and OAS), turning tax deductions into tax credits and other nonsense the PC's and LPC's were able to wrestle the deficit down. through tax increases and some spending cuts.

We are not talking about applying the Laffer curve to Canada.

In BC we are talking taking the top marginal tax rate (combined federal/provincial) down from 55% in 1999 to 44% today. I think most people would recognize reducing a top marginal tax rate to under 50% as being reasonable.

In the meantime, we have seen people who are "poor" go from paying a low amount of tax to nothing thanks to increasing the basic personal exemption and implementing other policies (working income tax benefit at the federal level, in BC a special tax reduction for low income people).

Now, I doubt people like you or CC know any of these facts.

Yet you will spout off on some broad brush big picture nonsense about how we need to end this tax and implement that tax.

I'll take the economists advice on this instead.

You replied to a some other post, and accidentally attached it to mine. I never touched on any the stuff you mentioned... just explained how comsumption taxes vs income taxes is really just a shell game, and the money comes from the same people regardless.

[bush_cheney2004]

I really don't think people really know what they are talking about. This is Canada - not the US.

No kidding! But they can't help it.

[Sa'adoni]

THERE WAS A MASSIVELY DEEP WORLD WIDE RECESSION, if you hadn't heard.

Recessions just mean people arn't working. TO fix that people start working. That doesn't take money it takes working people engaged in gainful employment - not make work projects with little or no tangible longterm benefits 50 billion on a import reduction employment plan would have gone much further than patching roads that still worked in northern areas of Canada or new billion dollar highways in the NWT to service a few thousand people each year. Plus recessions are fabricated by poor economic management they mean absolutely nothing, the government should only be aiming at two things AT ALL TIMES creating gainful employment (stimulating long term employment) and performing essential public services. THAT IS IT. The economy can manage itself beyond that.

It was all war waste. Bombs don't increase productivity they reduce it because they destroy infrastructure and weaken the global economy. a trillion dollars in war is trillions of dollars in lost economic benefits.

Edited February 28, 2012 by Sa'adoni

[Smallc]

Recessions just mean people arn't working.

No, it means that the economy actually shrinks. That happened. True story.

[bush_cheney2004]

....It was all war waste. Bombs don't increase productivity they reduce it because they destroy infrastructure and weaken the global economy. a trillion dollars in war is trillions of dollars in lost economic benefits.

This is false....it doesn't matter whether it's guns or butter...or both.

[Sa'adoni]

This is false....it doesn't matter whether it's guns or butter...or both.

Yes your statement is false. Butter is colories which increases producitive potential. A gun does not create anything unless it is to kill an animal as a food source or some unorhadox of using the gun as a stick to plant seeds with.

Basic needs create wealth. Production of luxuries reduce basic need productivity.

If all basic needs are met, the issue only exists because "people owe" services to people which is legislated slavery.. the public is enslaved by debt.

Guns can only remove that through otherwise illegal methods. So legally speaking butter is more effective at legal debt reduction, and is more productive.

But definately a bomb is in war likely less productive than butter. Bombs can be useful however for mining and some other infrastructure growing practices. But war is not productive it is destructive.

For instance a nuclear bomb could be used to melt the arctic and antarctic so that more land is arabale in northern climates increasing overall global productivity.

However forst fires would need to be planned for, but there is atleast 6% idle population or over a million canadians that could be tasked to agroforestry.

Perhaps nuclear weapons wouldn't help though?

http://www.ctbto.org/nuclear-testing/the-effects-of-nuclear-testing/the-soviet-unionsnuclear-testing-programme/page-4-effects-of-nuclear-weapon-testing-by-the-soviet-union/?textonly=1

Guns are for the most part only productive in hunting.

It is just a reminder that a 50megaton bomb droppedon toronto would give 3rd degree burns on people in Buffalo and vice versa.

Seeing that this is being productive for people tanning in NYC isn't very productive given the effects of the bomb itself on the bigger scale. Much like a 50megaton bomb being dropped on NYC woulnd't be productive even if people in Toronto got a tan.

It also important to note that moose can provide dung and urine and milk that can be used in agriculture and diet.. when a moose dies of natural causes it could be eaten. thus not requring the gun, only a tracking collar that measured life signs and gps location.

Many animals serve useful natural functions and can be greater domesticated for human benefits rather than killed outright. Animals might only be culled during overpopulation when they started attacking humans for food in scarcity and guns are less productive at this than other methods like pointy objects and water.

Guns enduce lazyness in hunting. A skilled bowman can do the same as a man with a rifle,with less noise, less expense and less resource use.

Only the very aged and infirm need guns. The ancients did it with their bare hands. Some people of the acrtic with only ice and frozen excrement.

Edited February 28, 2012 by Sa'adoni

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes your statement is false. Butter is colories which increases producitive potential. A gun does not create anything unless it is to kill an animal as a food source or some unorhadox of using the gun as a stick to plant seeds with.

You have instantly contradicted yourself.

Basic needs create wealth. Production of luxuries reduce basic need productivity.

Wealth is agnostic....check your values at the door.

If all basic needs are met, the issue only exists because "people owe" services to people which is legislated slavery.. the public is enslaved by debt.

Bye-bye Canadian style health care...free the slaves!

Guns can only remove that through otherwise illegal methods. So legally speaking butter is more effective at legal debt reduction, and is more productive.

Guns are legal in the country with the largest GDP on the planet.

But definately a bomb is in war likely less productive than butter. Bombs can be useful however for mining and some other infrastructure growing practices. But war is not productive it is destructive.

More contradictions...

It is just a reminder that a 50megaton bomb droppedon toronto would give 3rd degree burns on people in Buffalo and vice versa.

So what...Buffalo sucks even more than Toronto!

Only the very aged and infirm need guns. The ancients did it with their bare hands. Some people of the acrtic with only ice and frozen excrement.

Is that why you guys still club baby seals with hakapiks?

Edited February 28, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[GostHacked]

I thought the GST was no more? Because of the combination of provincial and GST into the new Harmonized Tax.

I don't get this.

[Newfoundlander]

I thought the GST was no more? Because of the combination of provincial and GST into the new Harmonized Tax.

I don't get this.

HST doesn't exist in all provinces and it's made up of PST and GST.

[Smallc]

HST doesn't exist in all provinces and it's made up of PST and GST.

Yes to the first thing, no to the second. It's not really related to PST, except that it replaced it.

[msj]

You replied to a some other post, and accidentally attached it to mine.

No it's not a mistake.

You make all these conclusions based on little knowledge of how the current system works; never mind being completely ignorant of the history of taxes in Canada.

To make the kind of conclusions that you do without knowing that it is just recently that corporate taxes have been cut, for example, completely undermines your entire post [#41 where you talk about supply side economics as if it is really relevant to Canada].

[Newfoundlander]

Yes to the first thing, no to the second. It's not really related to PST, except that it replaced it.

Well there's a provincial and federal portion of the HST.

[Smallc]

Well there's a provincial and federal portion of the HST.

Kind of, and not really at the same time. It's really all a federal tax. Some of the obey is simply given back to the provinces, and that sum is about equivalent to the previous PST.

[dre]

No it's not a mistake.

You make all these conclusions based on little knowledge of how the current system works; never mind being completely ignorant of the history of taxes in Canada.

To make the kind of conclusions that you do without knowing that it is just recently that corporate taxes have been cut, for example, completely undermines your entire post [#41 where you talk about supply side economics as if it is really relevant to Canada].

Again youre not contradicting anything I said in that post. Still not sure what youre on about.

My post was about how consumption vs income taxation is just a shell game, and income tax is a consumption tax as well. And it IS relevant to Canada, and most of the developed world as well. These policies were supposed to create jobs and prosperity and they havent, and they wont.

Edited February 29, 2012 by dre

[Sa'adoni]

No, it means that the economy actually shrinks. That happened. True story.

It only shrinks because productivity declines. The economy is a farse used for profit mongering rather than quality of life measures.

Economies should be GOAL centred NOT floating point how much money joe blow has measures.

businesses set the cost of doing business. people set the value of engaging that business.

It is about lifestyle and habits and resources becoming morecomplex itis not how much money people have but their quality of life.

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

Quality of life is the real value not a piece of paper.

Business health is totally irrelevant, it is productivity tied into quality of life that matters.

Edited February 29, 2012 by Sa'adoni

[msj]

Again youre not contradicting anything I said in that post. Still not sure what youre on about.

My post was about how consumption vs income taxation is just a shell game, and income tax is a consumption tax as well. And it IS relevant to Canada, and most of the developed world as well. These policies were supposed to create jobs and prosperity and they havent, and they wont.

You have no way to prove that they haven't made things better rather than worse.

Your comments regarding corporate tax cuts also indicate your bias on this matter - I have pointed out the timing of the corporate tax cuts as being too recent for any of us to really pass judgement on (well, unless one has a bias and an axe to grind ...).

[Newfoundlander]

Again youre not contradicting anything I said in that post. Still not sure what youre on about.

My post was about how consumption vs income taxation is just a shell game, and income tax is a consumption tax as well. And it IS relevant to Canada, and most of the developed world as well. These policies were supposed to create jobs and prosperity and they havent, and they wont.

Before the recession, which had nothing to do with Canada, our economy was doing very well.

[Smallc]

And before anyone says it, it wasn't just from resources. All sectors of the Canadian economy were basically running on all cylinders.

[madmax]

deleted

Edited February 29, 2012 by madmax

[Newfoundlander]

And before anyone says it, it wasn't just from resources. All sectors of the Canadian economy were basically running on all cylinders.

I believe the unemployment rate was at its lowest in like 40 years.

[msj]

And before anyone says it, it wasn't just from resources. All sectors of the Canadian economy were basically running on all cylinders.

I don't consider Canadians pulling an "American" by using debt as a replacement for real income growth to be a sustainable growth strategy for Canada.

Low interest rates and generous banking regulations (although at least they have been tightened up twice since 2006) are a big part of this.

That just means we're kicking the can down the road.

Canada is too much like the US in 2005.

[Smallc]

That was not the case for our economy before the recession though. Yes, Canadians were increasing their debt, but they were also saving. Also, though Canadians had more debt this quarter than last, they actually decreased non mortgage debt by 10%.

Your belief that Canada now and the Us of a few years ago are the same still isn't completely supported by anything other than high debt levels, which, IMO, are bad enough on their own, but not indicative of the kind of systemic problem that existed in the US.

Edited February 29, 2012 by Smallc

[msj]

That was not the case for our economy before the recession though. Yes, Canadians were increasing their debt, but they were also saving. Also, though Canadians had more debt this quarter than last, they actually decreased non mortgage debt by 10%.

Your belief that Canada now and the Us of a few years ago are the same still isn't completely supported by anything other than high debt levels, which, IMO, are bad enough on their own, but not indicative of the kind of systemic problem that existed in the US.

Canadians are not saving now. In BC our savings rate has been negative for years. In other parts of Canada it is at extreme lows (or negative).

As for decreasing mortgages - you mean replacing mortgage debt with HELOC.

A Heloc is a demand loan usually subject to short term interest rate flucuations. This is not an improvement and also is why I mention Canada is like the US in 2005 - that's what the Americans were doing so well, extracting "equity" from their homes and spending it.

As my belief of Canada being like the US, check out the latest Macleans' article on it.

Edited February 29, 2012 by msj

[Smallc]

Canadians are not saving now. In BC our savings rate has been negative for years. In other parts of Canada it is at extreme lows (or negative).

I know, and I don't like that. On the other hand, my savings rate is nothing right now, because I reduce my school debt by over $1000 a month. Before the recession, outside of BC, people were swing at a relatively healthy rate. Not so much now. Hopefully that's temporary.

As for decreasing mortgages - you mean replacing mortgage debt with HELOC.

No, I'm saying that they decreased non mortgage debt, and took out bigger mortgages.

As my belief of Canada being like the US, check out the latest Macleans' article on it.

There are conflicting analysis, and the majority don't point to what you're saying.

[Smallc]

However, I don't know enough about this to argue it myself. I simply know that as of now, most of the analysis I have read disagrees with your position.