Christy, Christy, Christy

General Forums General Chat
21

They way the HST was brought in sucks, but let’s get past the party affiliation rhetoric and discuss the HST itself. Consumption taxes make more sense than income taxes. I can only afford to buy a $20,000 car, my dentist can afford a $80,000 vehicle. I give the two levels of government $2,400 in taxes, my dentist gives them $9,600 in taxes. We both end up with transportation but he has paid $7,200 more in taxes. People that earn more tend to buy more expensive things, therefore would pay more in consumption taxes. What this government should do to truly make the HST fair, is not to lower it to 10%, but rather raise the personal income excemption from $10,000 to somewhere between $20,000 and $24,000. This way low income people, as well as everybody else, get to keep the first $20,000 or so before paying income tax. Whatever the government loses in revenue from raising the excemption limit they could make up for by raising the income tax rate for people earning above $80,000, to a rate that evens out the losses. The HST if done properly benefits lower income people, which is what I thought the NDP would be in favour of. Instead of wanting to get rid of it, they should be holding the governments feet to the fire to make it more equitable for lower income people. Force them to raise the personal excemption to a decent living standard.

I next plan to tackle the idiotic system of property taxes.

22

[quote=“blackhawkdown”]
I next plan to tackle the idiotic system of property taxes.[/quote]

In Prince Rupert? Good luck to you on that one!

23

maybe Mister Dix is trying to get Christy caught up in the HST so ppl forget about his fake memo in Casinogate

communities.canada.com/vancouver … llors.aspx

24

[quote=“blackhawkdown”]They way the HST was brought in sucks, but let’s get past the party affiliation rhetoric and discuss the HST itself. Consumption taxes make more sense than income taxes. I can only afford to buy a $20,000 car, my dentist can afford a $80,000 vehicle. I give the two levels of government $2,400 in taxes, my dentist gives them $9,600 in taxes. We both end up with transportation but he has paid $7,200 more in taxes. People that earn more tend to buy more expensive things, therefore would pay more in consumption taxes. What this government should do to truly make the HST fair, is not to lower it to 10%, but rather raise the personal income excemption from $10,000 to somewhere between $20,000 and $24,000. This way low income people, as well as everybody else, get to keep the first $20,000 or so before paying income tax. Whatever the government loses in revenue from raising the excemption limit they could make up for by raising the income tax rate for people earning above $80,000, to a rate that evens out the losses. The HST if done properly benefits lower income people, which is what I thought the NDP would be in favour of. Instead of wanting to get rid of it, they should be holding the governments feet to the fire to make it more equitable for lower income people. Force them to raise the personal excemption to a decent living standard.

I next plan to tackle the idiotic system of property taxes.[/quote]

You forget that because your dentist is buying his car as part of his business he gets his $9,600 back as a rebate.

25

[quote=“Jabber63”]maybe Mister Dix is trying to get Christy caught up in the HST so ppl forget about his fake memo in Casinogate

communities.canada.com/vancouver … llors.aspx[/quote]

Okay…if we’re going to throw stones. :smile:
How about an open investigation into BC Rail? If the Liberals have nothing to hide then Ms. Clark should allow a transparent investigation to go forward. In BC politics no one is lily white.

26

the HST is not good for me. My kids clothes cost me more along side various other things that were not subject to pst before like say a used car bought in a private sale… way to give jimmy pattison a gift at the expense of british +columbians+

27

[quote=“Soggy”]
You forget that because your dentist is buying his car as part of his business he gets his $9,600 back as a rebate.[/quote]

Taxation of vehicles, both for HST (and in GST/PST provinces) and for Income Tax is a complicated topic. The dentist would not be able to claim back $9,600 as a rebate, using blackhawkdown’s example.

If the dentist is running the business as or working for a corporation, the business could claim an Input Tax Credit (ITC) for the HST charged, but only up to $30,000 of the purchase price. However, the business would have to calculate the value of the personal use of the vehicle and report that as a taxable benefit to the dentist for IT purposes.

If the dentist is claiming the rebate as a sole proprietor or through a partnership, which is probably more likely, the amount of the ITC up to $30,000 depends on how much the vehicle is used for business purposes. The ITC claimed should reflect the percentage that the vehicle is used for business purposes, except that If it is used >90% for business the full ITC can be claimed (up to $30,000); if it used <10% for business no ITC can be claimed. It is best to keep a log because there will be unhappy consequences if the dentist (or the corporation) is audited and got it wrong.

Used cars purchased in a private sale were subject to PST (charged when the new owner bought insurance) and they still are subject to a provincial tax, not HST.

28

The personal exemption was increased for the 2010 tax year and there should be further increases, but that does not seem to be an NDP priority.

The NDP has changed a lot over the years (I joined as a teenager) and has become mostly an anti-party to the Liberals. They seem to have lost their ability to propose positive, inspiring changes. That can sometimes lead them into taking strange positions, essentially by default.

1.1 million people, including 220,000 seniors, get quarterly HST rebates that are higher than what they got under GST/PST (I doubt that Zalm qualifies). That’s a $230 million benefit to lower income people that the NDP apparently wants to take away. It’s a wonder that so many of us still vote for them.

29

[quote=“BTravenn”]

The personal exemption was increased for the 2010 tax year and there should be further increases, but that does not seem to be an NDP priority.

The NDP has changed a lot over the years (I joined as a teenager) and has become mostly an anti-party to the Liberals. They seem to have lost their ability to propose positive, inspiring changes. That can sometimes lead them into taking strange positions, essentially by default.

1.1 million people, including 220,000 seniors, get quarterly HST rebates that are higher than what they got under GST/PST (I doubt that Zalm qualifies). That’s a $230 million benefit to lower income people that the NDP apparently wants to take away. It’s a wonder that so many of us still vote for them.[/quote]

Shhh, your not supposed to share that the great protectors of the ordinary guy and gal, may not actually have their best interests at heart at all times… Sometimes it’s just handy politics to take the contrary position, because to suggest that something the other side has come up with may be beneficial, just won’t help the cause will it!

30

Personally, I’m not in favour of the HST. When I was working it always annoyed me when my income tax was lowered. I was making good money and didn’t mind paying my fair share. Now that I’m retired and the HST has been introduced (shoved down our throats) many things cost me more. I planned my retirement fairly well, but didn’t see this coming.
Of course I don’t agree with a carbon tax, neither. I don’t believe that most people will turn to public transportation en masse because of it. It’s just another tax grab.

31

This has been an interesting discussion.

BTravenn we seem to agree to cancel each other’s vote.

Couple of last comments.

The 10% reduction is clearly a bribe. And while on the surface it seems like a good deal, I am wondering if in fact it is. As Blackhawk pointed out, consumption taxes especially on high end non-essential type items will disproportionately cost the wealthy more than the middle class or the poor.

Now, Blackhawk’s dentist pays only $8000 on his new car instead of 9600 a savings to the wealthy of 1600 while Blackhawk saves only 400 on his cheaper model. So the savings on the 10% will be a considerable benefit to the wealthy.

And where does this savings come from. They did change the corporate taxes (something they criticized Dix about when he suggested higher corporate taxes) but that is not written in stone. In fact I find it interesting that the corporate world has not been outraged by this change. I guess they figure the benefit of the tax shift is worth the short term pain of waiting for the corporate taxes to be lowered in the future. (Yeh, call me cynical.)

And the guarantee of the 10% tax may not be the best plan either. We have no idea what a future budget will look like but they have forced a future government (of whatever party)to live with a decision that they are making now. A decision that is essentially a bribe.

Money has to come from somewhere but the option of higher consumer taxes is gone.

And may I be contradicting myself with arguing against the 10%. Who the hell knows because the referendum has totally shifted through this “fix”. Everything is being done on the fly. I also hate the fact that they are guilting us with “oh the poor and seniors will lose out if the tax is defeated” as if there are no other options to help the less fortunate.

So, I am voting to get rid of the tax.

And if it is defeated, I hope an election is called so that two incredibly disappointing parties can get their acts together and present rational, fair, transparent tax policies and budgets (that may even include the HST). Should have been done in 2009. Can still be done.

32

[quote=“DWhite”]
The 10% reduction is clearly a bribe. [/quote]

Exactly. The government could lower the HST to 10% now.

33

[quote=“BTravenn”]

[quote=“Soggy”]
You forget that because your dentist is buying his car as part of his business he gets his $9,600 back as a rebate.[/quote]

Taxation of vehicles, both for HST (and in GST/PST provinces) and for Income Tax is a complicated topic. The dentist would not be able to claim back $9,600 as a rebate, using blackhawkdown’s example.

If the dentist is running the business as or working for a corporation, the business could claim an Input Tax Credit (ITC) for the HST charged, but only up to $30,000 of the purchase price. However, the business would have to calculate the value of the personal use of the vehicle and report that as a taxable benefit to the dentist for IT purposes.

If the dentist is claiming the rebate as a sole proprietor or through a partnership, which is probably more likely, the amount of the ITC up to $30,000 depends on how much the vehicle is used for business purposes. The ITC claimed should reflect the percentage that the vehicle is used for business purposes, except that If it is used >90% for business the full ITC can be claimed (up to $30,000); if it used <10% for business no ITC can be claimed. It is best to keep a log because there will be unhappy consequences if the dentist (or the corporation) is audited and got it wrong.

Used cars purchased in a private sale were subject to PST (charged when the new owner bought insurance) and they still are subject to a provincial tax, not HST.[/quote]

Yes they were subject to PST but not pst+gst. The government took advantage of the HST to rake in an extra 7% off the purchase of all private sales. Bottom line is the HST means less money in my pocket and more in the pockets of rich business owners. Giving tax breaks to the rich didnt help create jobs when Regan did it it wont now. Try and justify it all you want the HST costs us more and just like the carbon tax is in no way ‘revenue neutral’

34

Bad example, the Dentist doesn’t get HST back on his car. He’d get to write off a work vehicle, claim the HST against the HST his practice takes in plus a percentage of the value. If he bought a new $80,000 Lexus he’d pay 12% just like anyone else. $9600.00 HST
The low income guy would be looking at an $800 car, not an $8000 one. $96.00 HST

Where this does come in is if the dentist buys a new chair. Say they cost $50,000.
OLD DAYS- dentist pays $50,000 + 3500 PST plus 2500 GST = $60,000 and gets to claim back $2500.00
NOW - dentist pays $50,000 + $6000 HST and claims back all $6000
The dentist save $3500 on the purchase of a new chair, makes it more likely he will buy a new one and give someone,maybe you a job making it that wasn’t there before. Or a contractor replacing a fleet of vehicles earlier or more often as it’s cheaper to do so.
They still pay 12%, but can claim it against the 12% they collect.

If you’re arguing that businesses shouldn’t get rebates because the lower incomes don’t your not arguing against the BC Liberals at all, FOAD you commie. They already do get rebates without doing shit to deserve them except stay poor.

35

[quote=“hitest”]
Exactly. The government could lower the HST to 10% now.[/quote]

I don’t see it as a bribe. Nor do I see it as the opposite, as an example of populist government. The government put itself in a serious bind, largely because of Campbell’s mishandling of the issue, and they had to come up with some pragmatic compromises.

As for implementing lower HST now, the government operates within approved budgets that are difficult to change on the fly, and there are only so many times that businesses that collect the tax can be asked to reprogram their tills in one year, given that there might be a return to PST/GST. There are also issues of fairness to consumers, in that there should be notice of changes so that consumers can plan major expenditures in particular to take advantage of tax changes.

There are no doubt other options, but unfortunately the NDP under Dix has yet to present an alternative to the rebates for the low income and seniors that they evidently want to take away. The NDP seems incapable of proposing comprehensive, positive alternatives. They’ve become an anti-party rather than a party with a clear vision.

We do however agree on somethings.

[quote=“DWhite”]
This has been an interesting discussion.

… we seem to agree to cancel each other’s vote.

… consumption taxes especially on high end non-essential type items will disproportionately cost the wealthy more than the middle class or the poor.

… And if it is defeated, I hope an election is called so that two incredibly disappointing parties can get their acts together … [/quote]

On the latter, it was disappointing that neither the Liberals nor the NDP brought in someone new with fresh ideas to be leader.

36

The government didn’t mishandle the situation, they lied plain and simple. The lie cost Campbell his job. Yes. Scrapping the HST will be inconvenient for businesses and for consumers if that is the result of the vote (I completely understand herbie’s rage over this issue). The Liberals put themselves in this position by trying to fool the voters of BC. They could have avoided this fiasco entirely by holding a referendum on the HST well in advance of the last election.

37

[quote=“BTravenn”]
I don’t see it as a bribe. Nor do I see it as the opposite, as an example of populist government. The government put itself in a serious bind, largely because of Campbell’s mishandling of the issue, and they had to come up with some pragmatic compromises. [/quote]

Well your definition of compromise and my definition of bribe seem to cross at some point.

I will take back bribe and use instead…

[quote]‘BUYING THEM WITH THEIR OWN MONEY’

Premier Christy Clark’s proposed changes to the HST were the subject of the entire Question Period in the Legislature May 25. NDP leader Adrian Dix led off with a quote from Clark in which she dismissed reducing the rate as buying people’s votes with their own money.

That quote came from a March 21, 2011 interview on CKYE radio with Harjinder Thind. Here’s the full transcript:

"We aren’t going to be talking about trying to reduce it by a point or two before the referendum. I mean, I think people will see that as buying them with their own money.

"Also, though, too, cutting the HST by one point is more than $800 million out of the budget this year and every year after, $1.6 billion for a two-point cut, and we need to ask ourselves where we’re going to get that money, because either we’re going to have a $1.6 billion bigger deficit or we’re going to have $1.6 billion fewer heart operations, special needs teachers, school facilities, hospital emergency rooms. I mean, that’s where the money comes from, ultimately.

“So, yes, the government could cut it, but at what cost to citizens? I think those are the most important questions that we need to ask. So for me, I think there are things that we can probably do to try and fix some of the issues with the HST, but I don’t see a big rate cut before the referendum.”[/quote]

Do you see now why I am confused. I am expected to trust them and they contradict themselves. And yes, we can play the semantic game. I do see that the rate has not been cut until after the referendum passes, but still they have to find the money. Campbell tried to get back support with the 15% income tax cut. People saw through that. Why is this any different?

The debate started as a tax shift. Now they are playing around with numbers - into the future even - that by their own premier’s admission we likely can’t afford.

38

It’s not rage.
If you think businesses shouldn’t write off their costs of doing business because you can’t write off your costs of going to work: you’re a commie by definition.
Offer to quit your job and return as a contractor. Then you’re eligible for the same breaks.