BC HST: Gone

General Forums General Chat
61

[quote=“zerocool”]I see the tactic you use – when you disagree with someone and can’t answer their points, you call them a name or label them? Sounds familiar.

Seriously, how much would a 2% reduction of the HST cost? Where was that money going to come from? I thought they were selling the HST as “revenue neutral.” Or was that a lie?

You can’t answer that, so you label it as spin? What does that make you, then?[/quote]

Add 5% to every PST exempt item and see what you get.

[quote=“zerocool”]And just what percentage of voters endorsed the Liberals in the last election? Serious question, since you bring up the percentage. Do you want to do the math, or should I?

Is your point that it’s not democratic? What percentage of voters marked “No” ? What percentage of voters didn’t give a shit?[/quote]

I merely said 25% of voters; based on the dismal voter turnout and the results of the referendum. Your point?

Funny you that assume I’m a supporter of a certain political party.

62

So it wasn’t to be “revenue neutral” as promised? I’m confused.

[quote=“zerocool”]I merely said 25% of voters. Your point?

Funny you that assume I’m a supporter of a certain political party.[/quote]

Where did I assume that? I just wondered why the 25% was meaningful? We elect governments with fewer votes, don’t we? So what’s wrong with defeating an unwanted tax in the same manner? You brought up 25%. Why is that number meaningful to you?

63

[quote=“zerocool”]

So it wasn’t to be “revenue neutral” as promised? I’m confused.[/quote]

You are confused.

[quote=“zerocool”]

Where did I assume that? I just wondered why the 25% was meaningful? We elect governments with fewer votes, don’t we? So what’s wrong with defeating an unwanted tax in the same manner? You brought up 25%. Why is that number meaningful to you?[/quote]

Like I said, just merely stating the fact.

U mad?

64

[quote=“PLA”]

[quote=“zerocool”]

So it wasn’t to be “revenue neutral” as promised? I’m confused.[/quote]

You are confused.[/quote]

How can the pro-HST side claim that the HST was to be revenue neutral, then when it is defeated, say that it’s going to cause a huge deficit? Isn’t that a contradiction? How about answering the question instead of insulting those who ask it?

[quote=“zerocool”]Like I said, just merely stating the fact.

U mad?[/quote]

No. I’m asking why you think the 25% is important? Why don’t you answer the question instead of moving on to insults?

65

[quote=“zerocool”]

No. I’m asking why you think the 25% is important? Why don’t you answer the question instead of moving on to insults?[/quote]

I’m not insulting you. Why you think that? :confused:

66

So no answer to the revenue-neutral question, eh?

67

No, it’s not a contradiction. About 2/3 of the deficit increase ($1.6 billion) results from having to repay money to the feds because of the return to PST. The other 1/3 ($700 million) results from lower than anticipated revenue from taxes on business. HST was good for many businesses, not all, granted, but many. Now businesses will be paying PST, including so that junk food eaters and smokers can have their PST exemptions restored. That will have a negative impact on many businesses, which in turn will reduce the income taxes they will pay.

No, as reported quite some time ago, HST revenues were higher than what had been originally projected. It was turning out not to be revenue neutral, so the 2% reduction was to restore revenue neutrality.

68

So the proposed 2% reduction in HST was to bring revenues to the same level as the PST of today?

69

No, of course not, the 2% reduction was to make HST revenue about the same as what was collected from PST pre-HST. Post-HST is a different scenario, especially because of all of the money that will have to be repaid to the feds. Taxes will have to be increased or services will have to be cut to cover that cost.

70

It is becoming increasingly difficult for me to believe anything the Liberals have to say and I don’t think I am alone.

Seeing that it is impossible to know what the truth is, I figure I can toss out some ideas as well.

During the 2009 election Campbell and Hansen pretty much guaranteed that the deficit would not exceed 500M. They were a long way off. Just months after the election, we learned that the deficit would be more like 2+B about 4x the projection.

Nice timing for the introduction of the HST tax shift and the 1.6B payout. So my question. How much of that money has come to BC? What exactly was it used for? Did they use all of it for the one year budget so they wouldn’t look so bad? It was a one shot gift/bribe that should have been spread out over several years, at least the five years of the original agreement? Have they blown it all already.

Did they pay down debt? Do the cuts or increased taxes have to occur? Maybe just go back into debt, back to the original deficit that they were either incompetently misinformed about or outright lied about.

I just want to see some honesty.

And BTravenn, you continue to make reference to the chip and pop crowd as if that is all that was taxed. I am sure there are other examples, but here’s one.

A couple of years ago, a family bought one of those whatever you call em things where you put a loved ones ashes in a section of their town’s cemetery. Recently they decided to buy one for themselves for down the road. It would cost them $200 more with HST. Pop and donuts are things that were probably not on most people’s minds when they were complaining about the HST. Funerals, renovations, landscaping, kids clothes, among others were.

That and the fact that it was a shift from friends of the Liberals onto ordinary people.

You can complain all you want about “what’s his name” but the Liberals have been more dishonest than the NDP ever were and perhaps just as incompetent as they would like to think the NDP were. Sometimes we just need to get rid of a party for a while just so it can reflect on its own shortcomings. Alberta aside all democracies do that.

71

if what’s his name is Adrian Dix I think producing false evidence during an official RCMP investigation is alot more serious then a politician not keeping his promise otherwise there would be alot of politicians in jail and no one in the parlimentary building

72

[quote=“DWhite”]It is becoming increasingly difficult for me to believe anything the Liberals have to say and I don’t think I am alone.

Seeing that it is impossible to know what the truth is, I figure I can toss out some ideas as well.

During the 2009 election Campbell and Hansen pretty much guaranteed that the deficit would not exceed 500M. They were a long way off. Just months after the election, we learned that the deficit would be more like 2+B about 4x the projection.

Nice timing for the introduction of the HST tax shift and the 1.6B payout. So my question. How much of that money has come to BC? What exactly was it used for? Did they use all of it for the one year budget so they wouldn’t look so bad? It was a one shot gift/bribe that should have been spread out over several years, at least the five years of the original agreement? Have they blown it all already.

Did they pay down debt? Do the cuts or increased taxes have to occur? Maybe just go back into debt, back to the original deficit that they were either incompetently misinformed about or outright lied about.

I just want to see some honesty.

All the rancour that the NDP seems to be drumming up about Clark and the Liberals seems to be on point from pre-ordained talking points

leaderpost.com/news/Politics … story.html

Though it does appear that the invective is turned right back at the NDP.

Of course for anyone in the middle of the pack electorally in this province, it appears that a replay of the Old Socred/NDP ears of the seventies and eighties is in store and I’m just not sure that is something that shows much progress in BC Politics I’m afraid.

And BTravenn, you continue to make reference to the chip and pop crowd as if that is all that was taxed. I am sure there are other examples, but here’s one.

A couple of years ago, a family bought one of those whatever you call em things where you put a loved ones ashes in a section of their town’s cemetery. Recently they decided to buy one for themselves for down the road. It would cost them $200 more with HST. Pop and donuts are things that were probably not on most people’s minds when they were complaining about the HST. Funerals, renovations, landscaping, kids clothes, among others were.

That and the fact that it was a shift from friends of the Liberals onto ordinary people.

You can complain all you want about “what’s his name” but the Liberals have been more dishonest than the NDP ever were and perhaps just as incompetent as they would like to think the NDP were. Sometimes we just need to get rid of a party for a while just so it can reflect on its own shortcomings. Alberta aside all democracies do that.[/quote]

All the rancour that the NDP seems to be drumming up about Clark and the Liberals seems to be on point from pre-ordained talking points, which seem to be delivered with gusto from their very faithful followers.

leaderpost.com/news/Politics … story.html

Though to be fair, it does appear that the invective is turned right back at the NDP at every chance.

Of course for anyone in the middle of the pack electorally in this province, it appears that a replay (or is it just a continuation?) of the Old Socred/NDP wars of the seventies and eighties is in store and I’m just not sure that is something that shows much progress in BC Politics I’m afraid.

Mind you in your quest for a little honesty, that magical quantity you are seeking, you could always ask Mr. Dix about his memo writing history,

As that’s not exactly his greatest hour, nor is it deliver any particular faith that anything would be different under an NDP administration.

Having a leader that seems to have been a little loose with the ethics isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement of the high ground in BC Politics

73

Do you not see a conflict between those statements? If you don’t believe anything the government says, you are going to have to wait an awfully long time before you see whatever you consider to be honesty coming from them.

First off, how many “ordinary people” spend $2857 on an urn? In order to pay $200 more to cover the provincial portion of HST that’s what they would have to spend. Perhaps you have another example to demonstrate your point. As for pop and chips etc, the government has been raking in an extra 7% on those high volume items 24/7 and it no doubt adds up to a considerable sum.

[quote=“DWhite”]

You can complain all you want about “what’s his name” but the Liberals have been more dishonest than the NDP ever were and perhaps just as incompetent as they would like to think the NDP were. Sometimes we just need to get rid of a party for a while just so it can reflect on its own shortcomings. Alberta aside all democracies do that.[/quote]

I’m not sure that I complain about what’s his name. He hasn’t made much of an impression, although falsifying police evidence certainly gives pause.

And no doubt sometimes it is best to get rid of a party so that they can reflect on their shortcomings, especially if it’s a party that you didn’t want to see in government in the first place.

74

If the Govt had not done things backwards by doing the vote first and waiting for the results rather than implementing the tax and then going for the vote this would not be such a mess. I just was not happy with the way it was presented …

75

[quote=“BTravenn”]
Do you not see a conflict between those statements? If you don’t believe anything the government says, you are going to have to wait an awfully long time before you see whatever you consider to be honesty coming from them.

First off, how many “ordinary people” spend $2857 on an urn? In order to pay $200 more to cover the provincial portion of HST that’s what they would have to spend. Perhaps you have another example to demonstrate your point. As for pop and chips etc, the government has been raking in an extra 7% on those high volume items 24/7 and it no doubt adds up to a considerable sum. [/quote]

Wow you love to nitpick. First of all saying that I am finding it increasingly difficult to believe anything they say does not mean I won’t believe anything they say. So it really isn’t a conflict. I then asked what happened to the 1.6B which is a fair question and one that hasn’t been answered. If they spread it out over 15 or 20 or 50 years, then the hit on the current budget is small. If they spent it all in one year, then the hit is bigger. And if they did spend it all in one year then what was it spent on and was that a wise use of a windfall. That is the honesty I am looking for.

I wasn’t referring to the urn. I was referring to the place where they put the urn. I have been at that cemetery. One section of the cemetery is a beautiful garden with cement pillars with individual depositories (forgive my vocabulary) where urns are placed. I am not sure how much a plot and a headstone cost but I am guessing the cost is similar. Now I am not suggesting that that is for everybody; I don’t care what happens to my body, but maybe my family cares and maybe other families care. Certainly the family I am referring to cared enough to leave some memorial to their loved ones. Funerals aren’t cheap and many ordinary people are willing to pay for them.

And thanks for the math lesson. It was actually $3200 for an added cost of $224. Now I know a funeral isn’t a regular occurrence, but to pay the equivalent in junk food would require someone to spend 3200 on chips and pop or about 10 of those items a day for a year. I would be curious to know what % of the HST was made up of junk food sales compared to other things that were added.

76

Sure that is a fair question. Why not do some research?

Since the government is running a deficit, we can safely assume that the $1.6 billion has been spent. It’s not like it would be put in an offshore account or stuffed in a sock and hidden under someone’s mattress. All revenue has to be accounted for. Without that revenue the deficit would have been higher, assuming that services were not cut or taxes increased.

As for what it has been spent on, the province gets transfer payments of various kinds from the feds, some with strings attached (eg to maintain national health care standards) and some not. From what I recall the $1.6 billion was discretionary funding. I would expect that along with other general revenue it contributed to the cost of services that we mostly take for granted. We seem to be more or less satisfied with what the government is spending money on these days.

[quote=“DWhite”]

… Now I know a funeral isn’t a regular occurrence, but to pay the equivalent in junk food would require someone to spend 3200 on chips and pop or about 10 of those items a day for a year. I would be curious to know what % of the HST was made up of junk food sales compared to other things that were added.[/quote]

Using your revised numbers, an annual expenditure of $3200 is only $8.77 a day. I suspect that a great many people spend that or more on junk food of various kinds, smokes, and not very healthy fast food. It would indeed be interesting to know what percentage of the tax collected on PST exempt items is derived from HST on junk food. I would think quite a lot.

77

[quote=“BTravenn”]

Sure that is a fair question. Why not do some research?

Since the government is running a deficit, we can safely assume that the $1.6 billion has been spent. It’s not like it would be put in an offshore account or stuffed in a sock and hidden under someone’s mattress. All revenue has to be accounted for. Without that revenue the deficit would have been higher, assuming that services were not cut or taxes increased.

Using your revised numbers, an annual expenditure of $3200 is only $8.77 a day. I suspect that a great many people spend that or more on junk food of various kinds, smokes, and not very healthy fast food. It would indeed be interesting to know what percentage of the tax collected on PST exempt items is derived from HST on junk food. I would think quite a lot.[/quote]

Are you asking me to do some research or am I to assume that you have done the research. You said “we can safely assume that the money has been spent”. Has it or has it just been budgeted for.

But I don’t want to quibble. Budgets are based on money coming in and money going out. The government received a windfall of 1.6B. Granted some of that was to pay for transition to the HST and now some of it will go to transitioning back. (Governments make mistakes and money gets wasted - quick let’s all yell fast ferries just so we can knock the NDP) My point is that the windfall was for a one year period. It wasn’t for every year. If they spent it last year to keep the deficit down then how were they going to manage future years.

If grandma gives me a couple of grand to help me get through this year, I still have to find a way to get through next year. If grandma needs the money back, I can’t blame grandma for my predicament. I would borrow the two grand and pay it off over several years. However much I have to pay the bank each year is now part of my deficit. Not the entire amount. The government could make the same claim. They could say they have to borrow the 1.6B and they will be paying it back at say 200M a year for 10 years (the math is approximate.) That means the actual hit for this year is 200M not 1.6B.

And maybe I have the 700M wrong. You appear to be talking about money from business revenue. I think zerocool was referring to the extra money that was coming from the tax itself. If the tax was supposed to be revenue neutral then that money should go back to consumers. They can’t claim a budget shortfall based on money they promised they wouldn’t have.

Finally, I am not arguing about a tax on junk food. You have now included cigarettes and I am not sure if they were PST exempt. They certainly are taxed and they can be taxed into oblivion for all I care. Same with junk food. If it is such a revenue maker then perhaps the government should tax it. I doubt that too many people will complain.

78

No, I’m not asking you to do some research, although as well as posing questions you might want to look at the 2010 Budget, which is readily accessible. See page 21 in particular. The $1.6 billion was spread over three years, including the current fiscal year, not just one year. bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2010/bfp/ … l_Plan.pdf

So yes, the money was budgeted for (as revenue) and it has been spent. If it wasn’t spent, ie if it was still sitting in the bank, that would be reflected in a surplus, since the government’s books consolidate all revenues and expenses. But we don’t have a surplus, we have a deficit, which means that it has been spent. I’m afraid that I don’t have any other way of trying to explaining it.

As for how they were going to manage for future years, revenue sources are not static. Economic conditions are in constant flux and tax revenues, resource revenues, and transfer payments accordingly vary year to year. Budgeting is an ongoing process and every year has its own problems, not all of which can be foreseen. That’s the case whether the finance minister is Liberal or NDP.

Whatever the financing arrangement and how much the hit will be in a particular year, it is still a hit in that the money has to come from somewhere, whether higher taxes, reduced services or in opportunity costs (ie money that could have been available for something else, say health or education, will now have to be spent on repaying the $1.6 billion).

The CBC article was not very clear or expansive. Shifting consumption taxes back to business should be revenue neutral if we are only looking at HST revenues compared to PST revenues. However, since businesses will be paying PST on items for which they currently receive HST ITCs, their costs will be going up and they will be less profitable. That will result in less revenue from corporate income taxes, which in turn will contribute to a higher deficit. The situation is complicated by global economic uncertainty, so we are unlikely to see business growth anytime soon that will offset the negative impacts on business of a return to PST.

[quote=“DWhite”]

Finally, I am not arguing about a tax on junk food. You have now included cigarettes and I am not sure if they were PST exempt. They certainly are taxed and they can be taxed into oblivion for all I care. Same with junk food. If it is such a revenue maker then perhaps the government should tax it. I doubt that too many people will complain.[/quote]

From what I understand smokes are taxed more heavily with HST. Hopefully the government will keep some of those taxes. We seem to agree on this issue.

79

[quote=“BTravenn”]
Hopefully the government will keep some of those taxes. We seem to agree on this issue.[/quote]

I am not even sure what issues we disagree on. You remind me of a defense attorney who pokes holes in the prosecution’s case not necessarily because he disagrees with the prosecutor’s contention that the guy is guilty but his job is to undermine the case.

I entered this most recent discussion with the comment that it is becoming increasingly difficult to believe anything the Liberals say. I wanted more honesty, openness. Maybe I am over-reacting but I think most will agree that this government is burdened with some trust issues. Instead of that topic being addressed three different people responded with “what about Adrian Dix?”

I then commented on the chips and pop issue, saying that other items were taxed. Instead of addressing that issue, I had to defend the numbers I used on funerals.

So I really don’t know where we disagree, and actually I don’t care. We obviously did not vote the same way in the referendum.

However, we have to agree that the HST was a tax shift and we have to agree that it was introduced in about as underhanded a manner as possible. Whether the tax shift is a good thing and whether or not governments should be held accountable for methods rather than just policy are interesting topics for discussion but the referendum is over.

To go back to my original comment about believability.

Kevin Falcon said this:

[quote]The management of going back to the PST/GST is a challenge, it’s a $2.3 billion challenge within our current fiscal plan, but that’s manageable," Falcon said while releasing the province’s first quarterly report for the 2011-2012 budget year.

“The larger issues that I’ve always been concerned about . . . was the issues and the events beyond our control,” he said. “That is the international debt situation with governments that have been fiscally irresponsible for many, many years, that is coming back to roost. Not only in Europe but also in the United States.”[/quote]

I believe him. I think the HST is manageable and probably more manageable than he wants us to think.

I also believe him when he says that the international situation is more of a problem.

But here is where I get less trusting. In 2009 just months after the international economic meltdown the government was saying that the budget was just fine - only $495M deficit which rose by 4x after the election. No HST on our radar yet it became the single most important thing they could do for the economy right after the election was over.

I may be wrong but I see a lot of contradiction there.

And there is also this.

I am not sure if that is what the public said. I think the public said bring in a fair tax policy and bring it in appropriately. But I guess he can spin it anyway he wants to push forward his agenda.

80

No doubt this government has been burdened by trust issues. The timing and optics of how they introduced HST were terrible. No one disagrees with that. But do we really know how much the government had discussed the issue internally before the election?

Tax issues and scenarios are subject to ongoing discussion within the finance ministry, but did the cabinet decide before the election that they were going to spring the HST on us immediately afterwards? We don’t know that; cabinet confidentiality.

Zalm reassures us, as someone who has been in the top job, that “they must have known”. Do you trust Zalm? Do you think that he doesn’t have a post-referendum agenda, in particular to push a renewed provincial conservative party that is to the right of the Liberals? Promote a party that could fill the political vacuum resulting from distrust of the Liberals?

As for the comments about Dix, maybe some of us don’t reserve our feelings of distrust just for Campbell or for Liberals whatever their names. Maybe we distrust or have a healthy skepticism of all politicians of all parties most of the time.

Remember the NDP government’s ‘fudge-it budgets’ of the mid-90s which appeared to have surpluses, but were really deficits in disguise? Did the NDP lie, or put more delicately were there trust or honesty issues? Did we have increasing difficulty believing anything the NDP said?

I got tired of hearing about those issues, fast ferries likewise, and eventually the NDP got my vote back. Fair comment can turn into tired rhetoric through constant repetition.

Perhaps there is a point in that. Continuing on with highly emotive lines about trust, honesty and old mistakes made by the other side may appeal to the party faithful until the end of time, and may hold the attention of some us for a while, but the skeptical centre, whose votes any party needs to be elected or stay in office, eventually tunes out the rhetoric of the past and moves on to the policy issues of the day.

Maybe that was because an injection of $1.6 billion in cash from the feds was the single most important thing they could do for the economy at that time. The global economic situation was unstable then and still is.

[quote=“DWhite”]

Whether the tax shift is a good thing and whether or not governments should be held accountable for methods rather than just policy are interesting topics for discussion but the referendum is over.

I am not sure if that is what the public said. I think the public said bring in a fair tax policy and bring it in appropriately. But I guess he can spin it anyway he wants to push forward his agenda.[/quote]

That’s not spin, and we do need to turn our attention to policy. The government will no doubt have to do with less resources, to pay back the $1.6 billion and because the economic situation is very uncertain, especially for an export based economy like BC’s, not least of all because these days the US Congress is dominated by a bunch of right-wing lunatics.