[cornholio]

In any case if anyone has looked the middle class is by far not better off since the Liberarls took office and implemented years of slashing programs and shifting the tax burden on to the middle class. I for one can tell you that life was better before the liberals, hell now you even have to pay for all the forestry campgrounds, thanks Campbell, you douche.

Economic indicators and such are not a telling sign of the quality of life experienced by the actual people.

Its about time we start reversing the trends of the last 10 or so years, it has to happen sooner or later anyways as we cant always be moving in one direction.

[sacrifice333]

^You may have thought you were better off... but the province wasn't.

And user pay is a great way to have user's pay! :banana: I know... it sounds too simple. But things such as camping is still highly subsidized even if you are paying a little more than you maybe used to. Just think you're paying less for Betty to go the Chiropractor and for me to go visit Physiotherapy!

The HST has a two-fold benefit system if you ask me:

1) It`s a consumption tax so it`s much like a "user pay" system. You buy tons of sh*t you pay tons of tax. You buy less you pay less. Yes we all pay some... but those in less fortunate positions than others get other ways of helping cope direct from the government.

2) Since HST is a Value Added type of tax if you add value in the supply chain you're basically exempt from the tax. This will ultimately benefit businesses in terms of lower costs which will either allow businesses to a) expand (more employees... more jobs!), b) increase profits (more taxes!!!), or c) reduce cost of goods (cheaper prices for us!!!)

The Bonus is the $1.6B that Ottawa gave us as an enticement... frankly, in a time when we really needed it!

[whatnext]

Its not just camping. The whole whitewash built around Campbell's tax cuts is a a laugh. Higher MSP premiums, higher licensing fees, the carbon tax and now the HST.

Of course Gordo could have just passed on the multi-billion Olympic party if he was serious about balancing the budget. Look for upcoming tourism figures to show what a great "investment" that was.

[sacrifice333]

Its not just camping. The whole whitewash built around Campbell's tax cuts is a a laugh. Higher MSP premiums, higher licensing fees, the carbon tax and now the HST.


Excellent points. None of that had to do with higher costs, inflation, or the greening of the western world. Those were obviously all things that Gordo just came up with to stick it to the little person.

[jlousa]

Just like the 25% cut on the BC portion of income tax they imposed on us. I remember the outrage of people complaining that the government should've kept our money.:rolleyes:

We have the lowest income tax rate in canada for anyone in the low and middle tax brackets. I can only laugh when people say we've never been taxed so much. They need to take a look at when taxfreedom day comes now and compare it to the last decade.

[whatnext]

Just like the 25% cut on the BC portion of income tax they imposed on us. I remember the outrage of people complaining that the government should've kept our money.:rolleyes:

We have the lowest income tax rate in canada for anyone in the low and middle tax brackets. I can only laugh when people say we've never been taxed so much. They need to take a look at when taxfreedom day comes now and compare it to the last decade.

As I just pointed out, those have been offset by a host of increased fees and taxes. Of course, if you're very wealthy, no doubt you've come out ahead. Gordo knows what side his bread is buttered on.

[Stingray2004]

As I just pointed out, those have been offset by a host of increased fees and taxes. Of course, if you're very wealthy, no doubt you've come out ahead.

BC provincial income taxes: (centre-right government - Liberal)

5.06% on the first $35,859 of taxable income, +
7.7% on the next $35,860, +
10.5% on the next $10,623, +
12.29% on the next $17,645, +
14.7% on the amount over $99,987

Earn $35,859 - $1,814.47 in total income taxes;
Earn $71,719 - $4,575.69 in total income taxes;
Earn $82,342 - $5,691.10 in total income taxes;
Earn $99,987 - $7,859.67 in total income taxes;
Earn $150,000 - $15,211.58 in total income taxes;
Earn $200,000 - $22,561.58 in total income taxes;

HST rate - 12%
Avg. University tuition fees: $4,840 (2009/10)

Corporate Income Tax rate: 10.5%
Small Business Rate: 2.5%

Nova Scotia provincial income taxes: (centre-left government - NDP)

8.79% on the first $29,590 of taxable income, +
14.95% on the next $29,590, +
16.67% on the next $33,820 +
17.5% on the amount over $93,000

Earn $29,590 - $2,600.96 in total income taxes;
Earn $59,180 - $7,024.67 in total income taxes;
Earn $93,000 - $12,662.46 in total income taxes;
Earn $150,000 - $22,637.46 in total income taxes;
Earn $200,000 - $31,387.46 in total income taxes;

HST rate - 15%
Avg. University tuition fees: $5,696 (2009/10)

Corporate Income Tax rate: 16%
Small Business Rate: 5%

So BC has considerably lower income tax rates in all income brackets, income tax kicks in at a higher income level, and has an HST rate 3% lower than Nova Scotia. And also has lower tuition fees, corporate/small business tax rates. Both provinces also charge user fees on numerous other items.

So you pick Nova Scotia? - I'll pick BC. :tup:

[touraccuracy]

what's your source? i wanna look at some other provinces.

[twoNeurons]

what's your source? i wanna look at some other provinces.

I'd be curious to see Alberta.

[Stingray2004]

what's your source? i wanna look at some other provinces.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html

I'd be curious to see Alberta.

Alberta - "10% of taxable income" [across the board]

So you are way ahead in BC in terms of taxable income paid, compared to Alberta, until you reach roughly the $150,000 income level - then Alberta becomes more favourable.

[BCPhil]

There were more portables in Surrey (363) in 1998 when the NDP was in power than today (232). Just something to think about when people tell you how it is around here now.

In '98 when I was going to university under the NDP, I had a wait list in every class, and entry requirements were through the roof. Now I could join a class just weeks before it starts, and get a better, bigger loan to cover the costs.

Camping fees are a token amount when you consider how much you probably spent on your sleeping bag, or the truck/camper combo next to you that probably costs more than your house. And they allow more people to have access to camp sites (cuts down on long term squatting), and allow for accurate reservations, so that when you travel your 300 miles to a campsite, it's there for you, instead of having to drive another few hundred to find another one.

[ozonemania]

This whole new 'Survivor MLA' thing that Vander Zalm is starting up. Does anyone else find it troubling that he's treating this like a reality TV game show? Is the populace that dumbed down that we actually respond to this with enthusiasm? Honestly I haven't read too much into how this initiative is going to work, but I sure don't like the sound of it at face value. I hope I'm not the only one.

[sacrifice333]

as much as I don't like the HST I wouldn't vote to repeal it

It sucks... but it's good tax policy.

[wrenegade]

It sucks... but it's good tax policy.

Agreed. Ideally the provincial portion would be 6% (or even 5%), but still it is good policy. That being said, there should have been some things that remained exempt. Financial services and commissions for sure, and possibly real estate. It really hurts in BC and especially Vancouver where prices are as high as they are.

[zivan56]

Yeah, putting businesses before people...really good policy :koko:

It may be acceptable if we had ultra high unemployment, but this was just done to make it look like the budget deficit wasn't so high and to cater to the business lobby.

If it is repealed, all businesses should be taxed retroactively to pay off any difference caused by repealing it. Personal taxes are subsidizing their activities and services provided to them anyways.

[wrenegade]

If it is repealed, all businesses should be taxed retroactively to pay off any difference caused by repealing it. Personal taxes are subsidizing their activities and services provided to them anyways.

Excuse me, but are you fucking kidding? Do you want businesses to just up and move away? And how did you come up with the fact that personal taxes subsidize the services provided to businesses? Seeing as health care accounts for something like 33% of provincial budgets (if not more), on that fact alone it probably swings the equation the other way. Oh, and property taxes on business subsidize the services provided to residents by a long shot, especially in the city of vancouver.

edit: I see this degenerating into a politicized argument very quickly, can a mod move the HST talk to a new thread in either politics or business/economy?

[sacrifice333]

Yeah, putting businesses before people...really good policy :koko:

It may be acceptable if we had ultra high unemployment, but this was just done to make it look like the budget deficit wasn't so high and to cater to the business lobby.

If it is repealed, all businesses should be taxed retroactively to pay off any difference caused by repealing it. Personal taxes are subsidizing their activities and services provided to them anyways.

Should probably take this to the HST thread... but give your head a shake!

Who do you think employs the people in this province?! It's business!!!

And HST, although not immediately, should lower the cost of goods, and thereby decrease what you pay for goods.

On top of that you seem like the type who'd like wealthy persons to pay more for their luxuries... well guess what?! HST, or a VAT / Consumption Tax, will do just that!!!

[BCPhil]

Why shouldn't the government (and by inference, we the people) make money off rich folks doing rich things, like trading in high value property? I don't see why it's a shame we now tax lawyers' and realtors' services they are offering to people who have more money than the rest of us. It's a shame it's slowing down the high end condo market, but maybe that just goes to show that the current prices of the market are beyond reason, even for rich people.

I don't see why people with money that want to spend it on luxurious accommodation should be given a break that results in the rest of the working class and other struggling businesses to cover those lost tax dollars.

[djmk]

Personal taxes are subsidizing their activities and services provided to them anyways.

i doubt you have any idea how your personal taxes and benefits are calculated and how much it has changed in the last 10 years.

[wrenegade]

I don't see why it's a shame we now tax lawyers' and realtors' services they are offering to people who have more money than the rest of us.

If you buy or sell property, regardless of whether it is new or not (and therefore HST exempt or not) you need a lawyer and 95%+ of transactions will have at least one realtor involved. Say you sell your house for $500k (notice I said house, not condo) and pay 3% in commissions (most likely you'll pay more, perhaps double). You now get an extra $1,800 kick in the ass by the government on top of the $15k you are paying the realtor. Now $1,800 may not seem like a lot on a $500k home, but $1,800 pays for a lot of groceries, or property taxes for a year.

I don't really have a problem with HST on a brand new million dollar condo, not many people are spending that kind of dough on their first home, the exemption limit at $525k is important though I think.

[whatnext]

If you buy or sell property, regardless of whether it is new or not (and therefore HST exempt or not) you need a lawyer and 95%+ of transactions will have at least one realtor involved. Say you sell your house for $500k (notice I said house, not condo) and pay 3% in commissions (most likely you'll pay more, perhaps double). You now get an extra $1,800 kick in the ass by the government on top of the $15k you are paying the realtor. Now $1,800 may not seem like a lot on a $500k home, but $1,800 pays for a lot of groceries, or property taxes for a year.

I don't really have a problem with HST on a brand new million dollar condo, not many people are spending that kind of dough on their first home, the exemption limit at $525k is important though I think.

I've never got the idea behind "first home" exemptions. The first home for a young couple might be a one bedroom condo. After 1 or 2 kids that's no longer enough - but that doesn't mean they're so rolling in dough they aren't equally deserving of an exemption on moving up to something larger.

[touraccuracy]

^even though it's not ideal, they already have a place to sleep, a roof over their heads.

[sacrifice333]

I've never got the idea behind "first home" exemptions. The first home for a young couple might be a one bedroom condo. After 1 or 2 kids that's no longer enough - but that doesn't mean they're so rolling in dough they aren't equally deserving of an exemption on moving up to something larger.

In our day and age and province and city it would be great if they greatly increased the exemption and simply made it a dollar value, or something, i.e. residences under $1,000,000 or something are exempt.

But that sure would result in a lower tax base if the exemption was increased to that wide a swath.

[Spork]

So then increase the tax on those over $1m?

[BCPhil]

If you buy or sell property, regardless of whether it is new or not (and therefore HST exempt or not) you need a lawyer and 95%+ of transactions will have at least one realtor involved. Say you sell your house for $500k (notice I said house, not condo) and pay 3% in commissions (most likely you'll pay more, perhaps double). You now get an extra $1,800 kick in the ass by the government on top of the $15k you are paying the realtor. Now $1,800 may not seem like a lot on a $500k home, but $1,800 pays for a lot of groceries, or property taxes for a year.

I don't really have a problem with HST on a brand new million dollar condo, not many people are spending that kind of dough on their first home, the exemption limit at $525k is important though I think.

If you have access to over $500,000 (even through a mortgage, or selling your property) you're pretty lucky. You're fretting about fees to buy/sell a place when there are people living on the street, and lines of people waiting at hospitals. There are people who work hard for their money and will never own a house in this city. It seems petty to be squabbling over a few thousand dollars when you're moving into such a nice place (or getting a boatload of cash). I don't see why people who have such large amounts of money to spend should be exempt from taxes to make their lives easier.

Besides, you're already paying for all the municipal red tape; in many cases well over $100,000 of a new property in BC is consumed by permit fees and complying with nonsensical bylaws.

[sacrifice333]

At the very least it seems that the PPT on a new purchase that is subject to HST is redundant and just plain mean.

Hopefully they get rid of the dual tax on new properties.

[djmk]

in theory you are only paying the provincial HST on new homes greater than $525,000.

prior to July 1st, it is estimated that 2% of the selling price is to cover PST. Now contractors do not pay PST (on legal fees, drywall, cement etc) and therefore, the contractor should be able to make that building cheaper.

therefore, the rebate should be (7%-2%)/7% or 5/7% or 71.43% of the provincial portion of the HST up to $26,250. (525,000 x 71.43% = 26,250)

however, this is all a moot point. the home will sell at market price and that should include all taxes.

[wrenegade]

If you have access to over $500,000 (even through a mortgage, or selling your property) you're pretty lucky. You're fretting about fees to buy/sell a place when there are people living on the street, and lines of people waiting at hospitals. There are people who work hard for their money and will never own a house in this city. It seems petty to be squabbling over a few thousand dollars when you're moving into such a nice place (or getting a boatload of cash). I don't see why people who have such large amounts of money to spend should be exempt from taxes to make their lives easier.


Considering the average price of a home in metro Vancouver is north of $675k, I wouldn't necessarily consider $500k a lot of money. And who says I (or anyone in this situation) would be moving into "such a nice place". If it's a brand new condo, sure, but I was trying to talk about a home that a couple or working family might move into. $500k isn't going to buy a lot of house, and depending on whereabouts the house is, it may need a lot of work. A lot of people will never own and that's fine but a lot of people will own, and they're not all millionaires, most are 2 income earner households who work hard and stretch every budget, including the one for their home. Why should they have to pay taxes on additional fees when they buy/sell their homes, or pay tax on tax (in the case of the PPT)!? For most people $1800, or $2000, or $5000 is a considerable amount of money that could ease a lot of things in peoples everyday lives.

And this has nothing to do with lines at hospitals or people living on the street. Save that for another discussion please.

[mezzanine]

^I would agree with BCPhil, HST on new home purchases, with the limit the set it is is not unreasonable. A big factor, again, is that it is only charged against a new home. If the amount of HST impacts on the size/location of the new home you want to buy, there is a much larger stock of existing housing for sale with no HST.

Raising the HST limit even more on new home purchases would introduce the arguement of subsidizing people how do have enough to buy a house. Why is $500K good, but 1 mil bad? I have no good answer to that except we have to have a cut-off somewhere. And don't forget, outside of metro vancouver $500K can buy you a large property.

And I hate to say this as I sound like a shill for Victoria and I can't predict the future, but I would expect new home prices to moderate (lower) b/c of the HST. Contractors get ITCs for their materials and that should pass thru to the consumer. A similar analogy for the impact of taxes and homes is the tax-deductiblity of mortgage payments in the states. On the surface, one can buy more house for your money, but it is an advantage that every american gets and prices would revert back to whatever the market demand is. And it is a regressive tax break in the end for people with more money.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/05/magazine/305deduction.1.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

[cabotp]

^I would agree with BCPhil, HST on new home purchases, with the limit the set it is is not unreasonable. A big factor, again, is that it is only charged against a new home. If the amount of HST impacts on the size/location of the new home you want to buy, there is a much larger stock of existing housing for sale with no HST.

Raising the HST limit even more on new home purchases would introduce the arguement of subsidizing people how do have enough to buy a house. Why is $500K good, but 1 mil bad? I have no good answer to that except we have to have a cut-off somewhere. And don't forget, outside of metro vancouver $500K can buy you a large property.

And I hate to say this as I sound like a shill for Victoria and I can't predict the future, but I would expect new home prices to moderate (lower) b/c of the HST. Contractors get ITCs for their materials and that should pass thru to the consumer. A similar analogy for the impact of taxes and homes is the tax-deductiblity of mortgage payments in the states. On the surface, one can buy more house for your money, but it is an advantage that every american gets and prices would revert back to whatever the market demand is. And it is a regressive tax break in the end for people with more money.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/05/magazine/305deduction.1.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

So maybe they should have two limits. $500K for new houses outside of Metro Vancouver and possibly $750K for new houses in Metro Vancouver. You can't even buy a new home in Vancouver for $500K. You might be able to out in Maple Ridge or Langley though and possibly other places.

[twoNeurons]

So maybe they should have two limits. $500K for new houses outside of Metro Vancouver and possibly $750K for new houses in Metro Vancouver. You can't even buy a new home in Vancouver for $500K. You might be able to out in Maple Ridge or Langley though and possibly other places.

North/West Vancouver? Westwood Plateau? Anmore?

[Zassk]

A home anywhere in City of Vancouver is a luxury, period. Nobody "needs" to live in Vancouver. If you lack the means, you can live elsewhere. $500k will get you a lot of home in a lot of other places - even places within easy transit distance. Let the Vancouver home buyers fill the coffers with their HST.

[wrenegade]

So Vanderzalm is predicting Campbell will announce a 1% cut in the HST on Friday. Thoughts?

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/09/30/bc-vander-zalm-hst.html

[whatnext]

A home anywhere in City of Vancouver is a luxury, period. Nobody "needs" to live in Vancouver. If you lack the means, you can live elsewhere. $500k will get you a lot of home in a lot of other places - even places within easy transit distance. Let the Vancouver home buyers fill the coffers with their HST.

But should a home in Vancouver be a luxury? This isn't Manhattan.

Look in your own backyard, there's a grand total of 6 houses for sale in Richmond under $500k (most pretty scary).
Is living in Richmond now a luxury?http://www.realtylink.org/prop_search/Detail.cfm?areatitle=&ARPK=&ComID=&agentid=&MLS=V805518&rowc=5&rowp=1&BCD=GV&imdp=13&RSPP=5&AIDL=915,916,917,918,919,920,921,922,923,924,925,926,927,928,929,930,931,932,933,934,935,936,937,938,939,940,941,942,943,310&SRTB=P_Price&ERTA=True&MNAGE=0&MXAGE=200&MNBT=0&MNBD=0&PTYTID=5&MNPRC=200000&MXPRC=500000&SCTP=RS

And then people complain about suburbanites polluting the air, the classic "why can't they all just live in 1 bedroom condos in Vancouver". Rather hypocritical of Rich Coleman to blast local zoning laws for adding costs to ownership, when the province is happy to double dip with their taxes.

[mezzanine]

Look in your own backyard, there's a grand total of 6 houses for sale in Richmond under $500k (most pretty scary).
Is living in Richmond now a luxury?http://www.realtylink.org/prop_search/Detail.cfm?areatitle=&ARPK=&ComID=&agentid=&MLS=V805518&rowc=5&rowp=1&BCD=GV&imdp=13&RSPP=5&AIDL=915,916,917,918,919,920,921,922,923,924,925,926,927,928,929,930,931,932,933,934,935,936,937,938,939,940,941,942,943,310&SRTB=P_Price&ERTA=True&MNAGE=0&MXAGE=200&MNBT=0&MNBD=0&PTYTID=5&MNPRC=200000&MXPRC=500000&SCTP=RS


IMO that link is misleading as it it clearly not a new home, which has no HST, as with most of the housing stock for sale in Metro Vancouver. Not a new home = no HST on purchase price.

So Vanderzalm is predicting Campbell will announce a 1% cut in the HST on Friday. Thoughts?

Here is one for the Zalm:

Democracy destroys itself because it abuses its right to freedom and equality. Because it teaches its citizens to consider audacity as a right, lawlessness as a freedom, abrasive speech as equality, and anarchy as progress. = Isocrates, Greek orator

He was successful in bringing in a binding referendum about the HST. What is he trying to do now?

[cabotp]

North/West Vancouver? Westwood Plateau? Anmore?

I'd love to see you show me at least 1 new detached home that can be bought for less than $500K in North/West Vancouver.

Notice how I said detached home and not condo. Because sure you could find a small condo for less than $500K.

[cabotp]

A home anywhere in City of Vancouver is a luxury, period. Nobody "needs" to live in Vancouver. If you lack the means, you can live elsewhere. $500k will get you a lot of home in a lot of other places - even places within easy transit distance. Let the Vancouver home buyers fill the coffers with their HST.

Why should a home in the CoV be any different than a home in Surrey. Are you saying that it is a luxury to be able to live on the east side of Vancouver.

[Stingray2004]

So Vanderzalm is predicting Campbell will announce a 1% cut in the HST on Friday. Thoughts?

That's from his so-called 'inside sources', which myth has now been debunked today by the finance minister and everyone else. The agreement with the feds does not allow for a cut in the provincial portion of the HST until 2012.

Remember that this is the same Zalm who once politically boasted that he: :D

"...would whiplash drug pushers, cut off welfare deadbeats, crack down on wife deserters, as well as expel hippies from the province by forcing them to take one-way bus tickets to Edmonton."

[Zassk]

Why should a home in the CoV be any different than a home in Surrey. Are you saying that it is a luxury to be able to live on the east side of Vancouver.

Rhetorical question? Of course different locations will always have different amounts of desirability, and therefore different prices. It's not reasonable to expect prices to be artifically held the same everywhere. Prices are high where people want to live, and lower where people want to live less.

It is a luxury to be able to buy a house where everyone wants to live.

To buy a basic necessity house, one cannot afford to be choosy about their location.

"But it's not fair!" Well, yeah, and I love to look wistfully at those nice houses at the water in West Vancouver, but I don't expect them to be priced within my reach just to satisfy me.

[djmk]

So Vanderzalm is predicting Campbell will announce a 1% cut in the HST on Friday. Thoughts?

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/09/30/bc-vander-zalm-hst.html

its already posted that he can't until 2012

however,

i would not be a bit surprised that this "revenue neutral" tax turns into a cash cow and the tax is lowered before the next election.

if he does announce something, i would bet on an increase to the minimum wage

[twoNeurons]

I'd love to see you show me at least 1 new detached home that can be bought for less than $500K in North/West Vancouver.

Notice how I said detached home and not condo. Because sure you could find a small condo for less than $500K.

I misread Metro Vancouver as City of Vancouver. I was wondering why you wouldn't apply the same 740k rule to expensive areas as well.

[BCPhil]

Why would you give people who have the money to spend a break? They chose where to live. If they can't afford the commission on their house, maybe they should look for a cheaper house (or cheaper realtor)(and isn't the seller usually responsible for commission, therefore they already have the money built up in equity to afford the HST). If they can't afford the HST on a brand new home in Vancouver, look further east or buy used. Lowering the tax on expensive purchases just transfers the wealth from the we the people to the wealthy, who already have it.

Maybe we should lower the HST and offer rebates on their BMW's and Audi's as well because they are already more expensive? 12% tax on a $5000 handbag, how can the rich afford to be rich with such taxes?

[djmk]

Why would you give people who have the money to spend a break? They chose where to live. If they can't afford the commission on their house, maybe they should look for a cheaper house (or cheaper realtor)(and isn't the seller usually responsible for commission, therefore they already have the money built up in equity to afford the HST). If they can't afford the HST on a brand new home in Vancouver, look further east or buy used. Lowering the tax on expensive purchases just transfers the wealth from the we the people to the wealthy, who already have it.

Maybe we should lower the HST and offer rebates on their BMW's and Audi's as well because they are already more expensive? 12% tax on a $5000 handbag, how can the rich afford to be rich with such taxes?

are you being sarcastic?

the more expensive the house, the more taxes you pay. that also includes handbags.

[Yume-sama]

Yes, of course, wealthier people will always pay way more in taxes than others. Even on a "fair tax" like the HST, in which everyone pays the same rate.

Assuming, of course, they spend their vastly larger amounts of disposable income.

The income tax should really be structured that way, but that's another issue :P

[mezzanine]

Yeef, remember that the house price arguement is somewhat moot as only newly constructed houses have HST levied on the purchase price. This is the minority of the detached housing stock in metro vancouver and an even smaller proportion of detached housing in vancouver proper.

[cabotp]

Why would you give people who have the money to spend a break? They chose where to live. If they can't afford the commission on their house, maybe they should look for a cheaper house (or cheaper realtor)(and isn't the seller usually responsible for commission, therefore they already have the money built up in equity to afford the HST). If they can't afford the HST on a brand new home in Vancouver, look further east or buy used. Lowering the tax on expensive purchases just transfers the wealth from the we the people to the wealthy, who already have it.

Maybe we should lower the HST and offer rebates on their BMW's and Audi's as well because they are already more expensive? 12% tax on a $5000 handbag, how can the rich afford to be rich with such taxes?

So are you saying that people who live in East Vancouver are well off and wealthy. Are you saying that people that live in Mount Pleasant or Strathcona are wealthy and well off.

I live in East Van. The price alone for the land itself where my house sits and not even including the price of a new detached home on it. You will already have to pay about $500K just for the dirt and nothing else.

I'm not talking about the west side of Vancouver or West Vancouver. Anyone who can buy a home there can pay the taxes.

I do have a question though.

If I was buying a new house for $750K. Would I pay the HST on what is above the $500K. So HST on $250K. Or would I pay HST on the full $750K.

[martinishaker]

Big business is going to ruin us. How horrible are they, lol.
I worked at Seaspan for years and saw constant layoffs. The HST is exactly what we need to be competitive. See Below from The Vancouver Sun.


Seaspan buys 4 tugs to handle growing traffic
CEO cites savings from HST as one reason company was able to get an additional tug built in Istanbul
By Brian Morton, Vancouver Sun


http://www.vancouversun.com/Seaspan+buys+tugs+handle+growing+traffic/3595498/story.html

[martinishaker]

My two cents on the HST referendum:

If we had a referendum on every tax in Canada, we could see a country with not one tax and we would be bankrupt.

[djmk]

If I was buying a new house for $750K. Would I pay the HST on what is above the $500K. So HST on $250K. Or would I pay HST on the full $750K.

there are two HST rebates - federal and provincial.

the federal rebate is for new houses (or those that have had significant renos) are for homes less than $450,000 and the max rebate at $350,000. I believe in BC, the max federal rebate is $6,300. however, if the home is more tan $450,000 there is no rebate.

the provincial rebate is 71.42% of the provincial portion of HST up to $525,000 to the max of $26,250. (525,000 x .07 x .7142)

therefore, HST on a 750K new house is
(750,000 x .15) - 26,250 = $63,750 of which 37,500 is federal and 26,250 is provincial. At this point, you are paying more federal HST than provincial.

also, right now there are some transition rules and PST rebates.

[djmk]

My two cents on the HST referendum:

If we had a referendum on every tax in Canada, we could see a country with not one tax and we would be bankrupt.

like California!

[cabotp]

My two cents on the HST referendum:

If we had a referendum on every tax in Canada, we could see a country with not one tax and we would be bankrupt.

The reason why people are pissed off. Is that if the Liberals had announced during the last election that they are thinking off or are probably going to implement the HST. That chances are they may not have won the election.

Now I'm not saying that is guaranteed. But some people would have voted differently and so the outcome could be different.

If the Liberals had won and lets say two years later announced that they are bringing in the HST. While some people would be upset at least it wouldn't have looked like they were keeping it a secret during the election.

[cabotp]

there are two HST rebates - federal and provincial.

the federal rebate is for new houses (or those that have had significant renos) are for homes less than $450,000 and the max rebate at $350,000. I believe in BC, the max federal rebate is $6,300. however, if the home is more tan $450,000 there is no rebate.

the provincial rebate is 71.42% of the provincial portion of HST up to $525,000 to the max of $26,250. (525,000 x .07 x .7142)

therefore, HST on a 750K new house is
(750,000 x .15) - 26,250 = $63,750 of which 37,500 is federal and 26,250 is provincial. At this point, you are paying more federal HST than provincial.

also, right now there are some transition rules and PST rebates.

I think you meant to say
(750,000 x .12) - 26,250 = $63,750

At first I didn't know what the .15 was. When I tried the calculations myself it didn't work out at .15. But works out at .12 which would be the HST rate in BC.

So that HST doesn't suddenly just kick in at a certain threshold. It builds up to it. But because you get a rebate below that threshold you end up paying less to nil.

[touraccuracy]

My two cents on the HST referendum:

If we had a referendum on every tax in Canada, we could see a country with not one tax and we would be bankrupt.

:tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup:

that is all.

[mezzanine]

The reason why people are pissed off. Is that if the Liberals had announced during the last election that they are thinking off or are probably going to implement the HST. That chances are they may not have won the election.

Now I'm not saying that is guaranteed. But some people would have voted differently and so the outcome could be different.

If the Liberals had won and lets say two years later announced that they are bringing in the HST. While some people would be upset at least it wouldn't have looked like they were keeping it a secret during the election.

Putting my machiavelli hat on, if they did raise the issue of bringing in the HST during the last election, i doubt that the electorate would respond to a reasoned debate about its pros and cons, especially with the intro of the carbon tax (also a good idea...)

I am unsure of any jurisdiction in north america where politicians campaigned on bringing in a new VAT/sales tax on a provincial/state level. I don't think HST was explicitly promised in ontario, but i am not sure. The carbon tax did come thru as an electoral promise, but it is different from the HST as it formed a wedge issue bet. enviros and NDP'ers.

As I've said before, i do think the HST is an important policy and an improvement from a retail sales tax. although I see that 7% taken away on things like take-out food, it will discourage excessive consumer consumption which IMO is always a good thing. I don't benefit from business ITCs, but I can see why that would be strategically important for BC business, especially small business.

[cabotp]

Putting my machiavelli hat on, if they did raise the issue of bringing in the HST during the last election, i doubt that the electorate would respond to a reasoned debate about its pros and cons, especially with the intro of the carbon tax (also a good idea...)

I am unsure of any jurisdiction in north america where politicians campaigned on bringing in a new VAT/sales tax on a provincial/state level. I don't think HST was explicitly promised in ontario, but i am not sure. The carbon tax did come thru as an electoral promise, but it is different from the HST as it formed a wedge issue bet. enviros and NDP'ers.

As I've said before, i do think the HST is an important policy and an improvement from a retail sales tax. although I see that 7% taken away on things like take-out food, it will discourage excessive consumer consumption which IMO is always a good thing. I don't benefit from business ITCs, but I can see why that would be strategically important for BC business, especially small business.

That is the thing. I feel people wouldn't have been so angry if they felt like it wasn't kept from them when they voted. It isn't so much the HST per say in this regard. Just the idea of it looking like something was kept a secret.

[BCPhil]

So are you saying that people who live in East Vancouver are well off and wealthy. Are you saying that people that live in Mount Pleasant or Strathcona are wealthy and well off.

I live in East Van. The price alone for the land itself where my house sits and not even including the price of a new detached home on it. You will already have to pay about $500K just for the dirt and nothing else.

I'm not talking about the west side of Vancouver or West Vancouver. Anyone who can buy a home there can pay the taxes.

I do have a question though.

If I was buying a new house for $750K. Would I pay the HST on what is above the $500K. So HST on $250K. Or would I pay HST on the full $750K.

Yes, I am saying that. People owning in East Van have an asset that is worth more than $500,000. How is that NOT wealth? A person owning a property in East Van has more wealth than 90% of the people on Planet Earth!

Value is value. I don't understand why someone buying a $600,000 property in central Vancouver deserves the same breaks that someone buying a $250,000 condo in Surrey gets. Making yourself poor with bad purchasing decisions doesn't make you worthy of a tax break. Just because you shop at the Salvation Army to make ends meet because you overstretch yourself on a $600,000 asset in Vancouver doesn't make you needy. You're not poor because you live in a neighborhood where your neighbor doesn't mow his lawn. You've made choices to get to that position, you had options. You traded your money for a valuable asset, one you didn't need to survive.

(And I'm not directly referring to you, or anyone in particular, I mean "you" as in people in general, so don't take offence as I'm not talking about anyone here, at least not on purpose).

People who need CMHC to cover the mortgage because they don't have enough to cover a down payment on a $250K new condo in Langley aren't quite as well off as someone plunking down on a $700,000 new house in Vancouver, are they? At the end of the month after paying only bills and living expenses, both might have zero in their bank account, but both aren't as equally broke, and both don't deserve the same tax breaks.

[whatnext]

The reason why people are pissed off. Is that if the Liberals had announced during the last election that they are thinking off or are probably going to implement the HST. That chances are they may not have won the election.

Now I'm not saying that is guaranteed. But some people would have voted differently and so the outcome could be different.

If the Liberals had won and lets say two years later announced that they are bringing in the HST. While some people would be upset at least it wouldn't have looked like they were keeping it a secret during the election.

Yeah, I don't know why the Gordo defenders here don't get that. Campbell's a liar, pure and simple. We saw it with BC Rail, casino gambling and the HST. It's not garden variety politician lying, promise everything deliver nothing - it borders on sociopathic.

As to the claim we'd be bankrupt if we allowed votes on every tax - nonsense. Canadians returned Chretien's Liberals to power twice after they began their drastic spending cuts to tame the deficit. Reduction in services for the same taxes is the same as a new tax.

As to crowing that Vander Zalm was wrong about Gordo's UBCM speech - the most striking thing about that speech is there were no new ideas. It was just a rehash of what's gone before. This gov't is bankrupt of ideas.

[cabotp]

Yes, I am saying that. People owning in East Van have an asset that is worth more than $500,000. How is that NOT wealth? A person owning a property in East Van has more wealth than 90% of the people on Planet Earth!

Value is value. I don't understand why someone buying a $600,000 property in central Vancouver deserves the same breaks that someone buying a $250,000 condo in Surrey gets. Making yourself poor with bad purchasing decisions doesn't make you worthy of a tax break. Just because you shop at the Salvation Army to make ends meet because you overstretch yourself on a $600,000 asset in Vancouver doesn't make you needy. You're not poor because you live in a neighborhood where your neighbor doesn't mow his lawn. You've made choices to get to that position, you had options. You traded your money for a valuable asset, one you didn't need to survive.

(And I'm not directly referring to you, or anyone in particular, I mean "you" as in people in general, so don't take offence as I'm not talking about anyone here, at least not on purpose).

People who need CMHC to cover the mortgage because they don't have enough to cover a down payment on a $250K new condo in Langley aren't quite as well off as someone plunking down on a $700,000 new house in Vancouver, are they? At the end of the month after paying only bills and living expenses, both might have zero in their bank account, but both aren't as equally broke, and both don't deserve the same tax breaks.

So if someone who doesn't own a home and is trying to buy their first new home. You are saying to them, If they don't want to pay the tax, don't even think of buying a new home in Vancouver as every new home will take you over the threshold. I'm referring to the east side as I realize anyone looking to buy on the west side is probably rich already.

If that is that case than developers need to stop knocking down older homes unless they are not safe anymore.

I'm not against the HST on new homes. I just feel the threshold is too low for this area.

I get the feeling once every new home on the eastern edge is over the threshold. That suddenly there will be a change. :rolleyes:

[mezzanine]

As to the claim we'd be bankrupt if we allowed votes on every tax - nonsense. Canadians returned Chretien's Liberals to power twice after they began their drastic spending cuts to tame the deficit. Reduction in services for the same taxes is the same as a new tax.

No, it's not.

Again. look to California as a cautionary example.

2003 = Facing a $38 billion deficit after the dotcom bubble burst, Governor Gray Davis triples the state's car tax. Incensed voters recall him. Incoming governor Schwarzenegger revokes the increase, which would have raised $4 billion annually

2007 = The state enjoys its final day in the black

2009 = After a February tax hike and major budget cuts fail to slash its swelling debt, California issues its first round of IOUs. The figure is expected to reach $3 billion by the end of July



Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1910985-2,00.html#ixzz11EdRZO9o

[BCPhil]

So if someone who doesn't own a home and is trying to buy their first new home. You are saying to them, If they don't want to pay the tax, don't even think of buying a new home in Vancouver as every new home will take you over the threshold. I'm referring to the east side as I realize anyone looking to buy on the west side is probably rich already.

If that is that case than developers need to stop knocking down older homes unless they are not safe anymore.

I'm not against the HST on new homes. I just feel the threshold is too low for this area.

I get the feeling once every new home on the eastern edge is over the threshold. That suddenly there will be a change. :rolleyes:

Yes. Where you live is a choice. You can choose to pay less to live elsewhere if you want to avoid the HST on a new home. Why should someone in Vancouver get a bigger break or higher threshold just because they decide to live in a more expensive part of town. It's like saying taxes should be lower on cars sold in on the West side because they are all going to be more expensive. So what?

A tax break is meant to give people who need help to survive help to survive, not make living in a desirable and expensive part of town easy. If you can't afford HST on a $600,000 new home, don't buy it. There are cheaper alternative outside CoV where you can get a tax break. I don't see where in the Charter it list living in the City of Vancouver an inalienable right. If the city wants to make buying a new home more affordable, they can lower the fees they charge on permits. But I don't see why the BC taxpayer should be supporting people who have access to over half a million dollars.

[Zassk]

So if someone who doesn't own a home and is trying to buy their first new home. You are saying to them, If they don't want to pay the tax, don't even think of buying a new home in Vancouver as every new home will take you over the threshold.

Yes, what is wrong with that statement?

I'm referring to the east side as I realize anyone looking to buy on the west side is probably rich already.

Anyone looking to buy on the west OR east side is probably rich already.

I think you need to reconsider the realities of asset wealth (and cost) on the east side.


If that is that case than developers need to stop knocking down older homes unless they are not safe anymore.


There are plenty of used houses for sale that anyone can buy tax-free. Usually it is the buyer tearing down what they bought, anyway.

[cabotp]

Yes. Where you live is a choice. You can choose to pay less to live elsewhere if you want to avoid the HST on a new home. Why should someone in Vancouver get a bigger break or higher threshold just because they decide to live in a more expensive part of town. It's like saying taxes should be lower on cars sold in on the West side because they are all going to be more expensive. So what?

A tax break is meant to give people who need help to survive help to survive, not make living in a desirable and expensive part of town easy. If you can't afford HST on a $600,000 new home, don't buy it. There are cheaper alternative outside CoV where you can get a tax break. I don't see where in the Charter it list living in the City of Vancouver an inalienable right. If the city wants to make buying a new home more affordable, they can lower the fees they charge on permits. But I don't see why the BC taxpayer should be supporting people who have access to over half a million dollars.

The higher threshold would apply to all of Metro Vancouver, not just Vancouver itself.

I would raise the threshold on new homes. But if a buyer already owns a home than there would no rebate at all. Basically a buyer looking to buy their 2nd new home would be paying HST on the full value of the home. So on a 2nd home at $500.000 they would pay $60,000

[cabotp]

Yes, what is wrong with that statement?



Anyone looking to buy on the west OR east side is probably rich already.

I think you need to reconsider the realities of asset wealth (and cost) on the east side.



There are plenty of used houses for sale that anyone can buy tax-free. Usually it is the buyer tearing down what they bought, anyway.

Well if someone is looking to buy a home in east Van. What makes you think they have asset wealth already. If they don't own a home, how could they have a asset wealth from real estate. I left other assests out as it is impossible to know if a buyer would have those or not.

Funny how the only people I see buying older homes and knocking them down in my area. Seem to all be developers. And they sure as hell aren't the people who are going to live in them. So if they aren't going to live in them. Why should they be allowed to knock a house down and rebuild thus forcing the next buyer to pay HST on a property that didn't even have HST before.

[twoNeurons]

Well if someone is looking to buy a home in east Van. What makes you think they have asset wealth already. If they don't own a home, how could they have a asset wealth from real estate. I left other assests out as it is impossible to know if a buyer would have those or not.

Funny how the only people I see buying older homes and knocking them down in my area. Seem to all be developers. And they sure as hell aren't the people who are going to live in them. So if they aren't going to live in them. Why should they be allowed to knock a house down and rebuild thus forcing the next buyer to pay HST on a property that didn't even have HST before.

If you think about it... the developer has paid HST on all the supplies to build the house. This is merely being transferred, as the end buyer is the one who is eventually paying that.

You may have a point about the land, however. Nothing "new" about the dirt that the house sits on. All the plumbing and infrastructure connecting to the city is used.

With a Condo I can understand, because most of the price is in the building, but for a house, at LEAST half of the cost is in property value.

[Zassk]

So if they aren't going to live in them. Why should they be allowed to knock a house down and rebuild thus forcing the next buyer to pay HST on a property that didn't even have HST before.

You make it sound like people are being forced to reluctantly buy new houses when they would rather buy used. I would say it is the opposite: people want new houses, period. They will either buy an old one to tear it down and build new, or else look for a developer who has already done so for them. If people preferred used houses then we would not be having the HST conversation.

Most wood houses built in Vancouver will not last 100 years. Most have a useful lifetime of less than 50 years without rehabilitation, and anything approaching this age should be a candidate for replacement. A replacement house is likely to be more efficient, use safer materials, and be safer in a disaster. All of these things benefit the whole community, not just the homeowner.

[djmk]

Funny how the only people I see buying older homes and knocking them down in my area. Seem to all be developers. And they sure as hell aren't the people who are going to live in them. So if they aren't going to live in them. Why should they be allowed to knock a house down and rebuild thus forcing the next buyer to pay HST on a property that didn't even have HST before.


you do have a point here.

before you get carried away, it should be noted that it can be easier and cheaper to knock down a house and rebuild. Older homes may have rot or may not have the proper electrical, plumbing, windows, roof, floor plan, insulation etc etc etc..... Right now, renos have HST. new homes have HST. However, new homes have HST on the LAND as well. Renos will just pay HST on the renos.

Prior to July 1st. Supplies into your home (ie new windows) were PST exempt. Now new windows into your home has HST and therefore more expensive. that sucks.

Nonetheless, purchasing your house has to be at market value. market value includes tax.

[cabotp]

If you think about it... the developer has paid HST on all the supplies to build the house. This is merely being transferred, as the end buyer is the one who is eventually paying that.

You may have a point about the land, however. Nothing "new" about the dirt that the house sits on. All the plumbing and infrastructure connecting to the city is used.

With a Condo I can understand, because most of the price is in the building, but for a house, at LEAST half of the cost is in property value.

I believe it is closer to 3/4 of the price of the property value in Vancouver. It probably gets closer to 1/2 though outside of the city where land values aren't as expensive. If you were buying an older home. it would be more 80-90% of the price would be in the property.

You are correct though that a developer did pay HST build the new home. So it should be passed on.


You make it sound like people are being forced to reluctantly buy new houses when they would rather buy used. I would say it is the opposite: people want new houses, period. They will either buy an old one to tear it down and build new, or else look for a developer who has already done so for them. If people preferred used houses then we would not be having the HST conversation.

Most wood houses built in Vancouver will not last 100 years. Most have a useful lifetime of less than 50 years without rehabilitation, and anything approaching this age should be a candidate for replacement. A replacement house is likely to be more efficient, use safer materials, and be safer in a disaster. All of these things benefit the whole community, not just the homeowner.

Don't get me wrong. I do feel that if a house isn't up to standard then yes it should be replaced.

If someone wants to buy an older home and rebuild or reno it. Then I'm all happy for them. But I don't believe a developer should be allowed to come along and knock an older home down to resell it to a third party. Unless the house is condemed as one was in my area after it had a small fire.

you do have a point here.

before you get carried away, it should be noted that it can be easier and cheaper to knock down a house and rebuild. Older homes may have rot or may not have the proper electrical, plumbing, windows, roof, floor plan, insulation etc etc etc..... Right now, renos have HST. new homes have HST. However, new homes have HST on the LAND as well. Renos will just pay HST on the renos.

Prior to July 1st. Supplies into your home (ie new windows) were PST exempt. Now new windows into your home has HST and therefore more expensive. that sucks.

Nonetheless, purchasing your house has to be at market value. market value includes tax.

Maybe that is what gets to me the most. In a case like East Vancouver that the price of the land on a property already takes you very close to the threshold for the rebate. Without even putting a house on that land. Yet there nothing new about the land. I'm only using East Van as an example. As the price of land in other parts of the Metro region can be just as high or higher as well.

[whatnext]

...Most wood houses built in Vancouver will not last 100 years. Most have a useful lifetime of less than 50 years without rehabilitation, and anything approaching this age should be a candidate for replacement. A replacement house is likely to be more efficient, use safer materials, and be safer in a disaster. All of these things benefit the whole community, not just the homeowner.

No, the greenest house is one that's already built. There is no reason that a properly maintained home in Vancouver can't last more than 100 years, many have already have done so. I find it very strange that we're replacing perfectly good 2,000 sq ft homes with 4,000 sq ft replacements when the size of the average family keeps shrinking. And using multi-generational families isn't an excuse. Plenty of the homes built in Vancouver 100 years ago were multi-generational.

[Zassk]

No, the greenest house is one that's already built.

You can't say this as a blanket statement. There are too many variables. Was the foundation built anything close to modern code? Is the old wiring posing a fire risk to the neighbourhood? Is there asbestos? Does it cost more to heat every year than a new house, and if so, then how much more? The ideal well-built old house may be better kept than torn down, but many (perhaps most) old houses don't live up to that ideal.

[cabotp]

You can't say this as a blanket statement. There are too many variables. Was the foundation built anything close to modern code? Is the old wiring posing a fire risk to the neighbourhood? Is there asbestos? Does it cost more to heat every year than a new house, and if so, then how much more? The ideal well-built old house may be better kept than torn down, but many (perhaps most) old houses don't live up to that ideal.

Except shouldn't it be up to the person who wants to live in the area. Whether they want to knock down an older home and live in the New one.

Just because it isn't insulated as well as todays standards. Doesn't mean the house itself needs to be rebuilt.

Now if the house has been condemed. Then sure it will need to be knocked down for safety reasons.

Besides how does the developer know what kind of layout of rooms buyers might want. A buyer of a new home has no say in the general lay out of the rooms in the house. Sure they could look for another home. But what if no buyer likes the layout of the new homes. Does that mean they would never sell.

[BCPhil]

That's the market in action though. A new house is more highly valued than an old house, or else buying the old house, plus building the new one would cost more than what the developer could sell it for (but I think that's starting to happen). People want new houses or else they wouldn't be paying insane prices for them. Vancouver is a desirable place to live, and for a lot of people with money, it's a desriable place to have a brand new house. They pay for that privilege, first with crazy prices, then with HST on top of that.

If you want to take action against people tearing down old homes and building new ones, talk to city hall. Having to pay HST or not isn't going to deter people from flipping properties. You would have to get City Hall to reject some permits. But I think it's people's right to spend their money however they want (as crazy as I might think their ideas are). If a developer can see a way of adding value to a property that people want to pay for, then all the power to them (it does create jobs afterall).

The tricky part is to make incentives for developers to also develop for lower classes. While it might not be as glamorous as building mansions and penthouses, there are still profits that can be made in selling/renting homes to the blue collar class, so it will still happen. In a lot of places around the region, I'm seeing 2 free standing homes replaced with 3, or 5 homes become 8 row homes. While many developers tear down an older house to make way for a new, super house, in some areas they are actually increasing density by subdividing to make profit. The total cost of the whole project is higher, but the cost to each purchaser is lower than if they bought one of the old single homes.

Also, developers won't be paying the HST. The HST they are spending is going to add value to a re-sale, to their product, so they don't have to pay it. The consumer pays the HST. But, this should result in a lower cost to the developer (everything is now 7 to 12% cheaper, or more when you consider the people they are buying from don't have to pay tax either on what they bought) which can be passed on to the consumer, depending on the market. If the market continues to slow, look for this savings to the developer to be one of the only reasons to keep many projects moving as they can lower their price to match the market.

[touraccuracy]

Yeah, I don't know why the Gordo defenders here don't get that. Campbell's a liar, pure and simple. We saw it with BC Rail, casino gambling and the HST. It's not garden variety politician lying, promise everything deliver nothing - it borders on sociopathic.

Woah woah careful with the hyperbole there.

Most promises he's made he's kept. I remember back in the '05 election everyone was whining about "broken promises." The Liberals went through their entire platform from '01 and showed that they kept over 90% of their promises: more than can be said for most political parties, especially the NDP during their last try.

Were selling BC Rail, increasing casino gambling, and introducing the HST bad decisions? I like how the number one argument against these things is that they're "broken promises" rather than whether or they're good decisions. That's the shitty thing about democracy; I think we all agree on this forum that the public is generally retarded. BC Rail: I'm no expert on but I've heard a lot of people on this forum argue that it was a smart decision, that it put a lot of money into the hands of the government to help make a quick recovery from the NDP decade, especially after they had so boldly lied about provincial finances. Casino gambling: are people really still against that? Chocolate and blowjobs should be illegal!1!!!1 But seriously, the NDP and the BC Liberals were in complete agreement in the 90s that opening a casino downtown would be the end of the world (when Wynn tried to do it). Now the attitudes of the province have changed, and with it the government has too. PRO TIP: the NDP support casino gambling expansions too! Oh noes I guess they broke their promises! How dare anything change! An NDP critic even said that he supports making bigger casinos because it means that there will be more to do other than gambling (theatres, restaurants, hotels, and other entertainment). And then there's the HST: pretty much most of the arguments are out here in this thread and it seems a majority on this educated forum supports the tax. Someone on here said something along the lines of "the only reason the NDP doesn't support it seems to be because they didn't think of it first." Think about how much money everyone has saved from the tax cuts since the Liberals took office. We have one of the best/most competitive/cheapest tax systems in the country. Would you really reverse all that to get rid of 7% more expensive specific items?

As to the claim we'd be bankrupt if we allowed votes on every tax - nonsense. Canadians returned Chretien's Liberals to power twice after they began their drastic spending cuts to tame the deficit. Reduction in services for the same taxes is the same as a new tax.

Cutting spending is not the same as adding a tax, that's a ridiculous assumption. Sure they have the same effect on the bottom line, but you're talking about public perception here. It's a whole new ball game, everybody notices an increased tax especially the level of press the HST is getting, very few people notice a decreased number somewhere in the huge government budget.

As to crowing that Vander Zalm was wrong about Gordo's UBCM speech - the most striking thing about that speech is there were no new ideas. It was just a rehash of what's gone before. This gov't is bankrupt of ideas.

And yet they have more ideas than any other party in this province. Seriously, when was the last time the official opposition offered an idea instead of taking the Liberal stance and reversing it. I don't think I've ever heard a single positive idea from the NDP, a single plan of action, and that's no hyperbole.

[Yume-sama]

The easiest job in politics is being the opposition. You don't have to be *for* anything. You can just be against *everything*.

And then come election time it's "SEE WHAT THEY DID!" not "Here's what we'll do..."

[cabotp]

The easiest job in politics is being the opposition. You don't have to be *for* anything. You can just be against *everything*.

And then come election time it's "SEE WHAT THEY DID!" not "Here's what we'll do..."

It goes both ways that.

As for the liberals I never liked them and I never will like them. So to me they could promise me a $1 Million, and I still would never vote for them.

But even if this wasn't the Liberals in power and some other party was. If the same thing was happening I would still be upset.

[touraccuracy]

The easiest job in politics is being the opposition. You don't have to be *for* anything. You can just be against *everything*.

And then come election time it's "SEE WHAT THEY DID!" not "Here's what we'll do..."

Pretty much, and I guess it's to be expected. But if people are going to grill the government on everything it does, it'd be nice to hear some alternatives. The government isn't evil, members of cabinet aren't sitting in their offices thinking of ways to make your life miserable.

I've met a couple members of the cabinet and they're all great people. They actually beg you to tell them what you think should be done. I was a member of the BC Young Liberals a while back (so I could go to interesting events for free), and I remember the party constantly begging the youth to come up with ideas and tell them what we wanted from our province. Gordon Campbell actually made a great point while talking to some members at an event, he told us that his job is wildly unpredictable, a couple cent drop in the price of natural gas will cost BC billions of dollars. That's why I try not to judge the NDP's decade of idiocy too harshly.

[touraccuracy]

As for the liberals I never liked them and I never will like them. So to me they could promise me a $1 Million, and I still would never vote for them.

Can I ask why? It appears crazy to be completely against a party no matter what (almost as bad as being completely for a party no matter what). I should hope there's a good reason.

[Yume-sama]

It goes both ways that.

As for the liberals I never liked them and I never will like them. So to me they could promise me a $1 Million, and I still would never vote for them.

But even if this wasn't the Liberals in power and some other party was. If the same thing was happening I would still be upset.

I sure would. I'd love to be on the good side of the re-distribution of other peoples wealth for once.

[cabotp]

I sure would. I'd love to be on the good side of the re-distribution of other peoples wealth for once.

Ah but what if they promise it. And then decide to not honour the deal.

Politicians are famous for making promises they never intend to keep. :rolleyes:

[twoNeurons]

I sure would. I'd love to be on the good side of the re-distribution of other peoples wealth for once.

Of course, it could be argued that every time one eats at a restaurant, drinks at a Starbucks or stays at a hotel in BC, they're on the good side of the re-distribution. Prices are kept lower for such things through low wages.

Higher wages would raise the price of services but would would have considerably less of an effect on basic necessities.

Sorry for the thread creep.

[Zassk]

Except shouldn't it be up to the person who wants to live in the area. Whether they want to knock down an older home and live in the New one.

Again, you make it sound like these developers are depriving buyers of the old homes that they want. If you ask me, there are more than enough old homes on the market available to be bought. Anyone who wants to buy one, can find one. The fact that so many old houses are being torn down to build new ones tells me that there's a surplus of old houses on the market. The most profitable product would the old house if that was what the market demanded.

[cabotp]

Again, you make it sound like these developers are depriving buyers of the old homes that they want. If you ask me, there are more than enough old homes on the market available to be bought. Anyone who wants to buy one, can find one. The fact that so many old houses are being torn down to build new ones tells me that there's a surplus of old houses on the market. The most profitable product would the old house if that was what the market demanded.


This is a never ending circle debate that we are never going to agree upon.

My only comment is that yes the market will be driven by what demand says. But the market itself is not perfect, nor will it ever be perfect. For anyone to think the market is perfect is living in a dream world.

I have noticed that a lot of you have said that if I or someone else doesn't want to pay HST on something. Then don't buy that item or don't go to that restuarant or what have you. In those cases people have a choice on what they want to consume and if they don't want to pay as much HST than they should consume less or consume nothing at all. The HST is viewed as a consumption tax. Which I do agree upon.

However what about in the case of electricity and heating oil / natural gas. Unless you are homeless. You are forced to consume both of those. You can't live in any home without electricy or heating fluids. So you are forced to pay HST or GST on an item that you need. Sure you could consume less but you can't consume 0 and be able to survive all that well. I just feel these two items should be under the same category as groceries.

[whatnext]

Woah woah careful with the hyperbole there.

Most promises he's made he's kept. I remember back in the '05 election everyone was whining about "broken promises." The Liberals went through their entire platform from '01 and showed that they kept over 90% of their promises: more than can be said for most political parties, especially the NDP during their last try.

Were selling BC Rail, increasing casino gambling, and introducing the HST bad decisions? I like how the number one argument against these things is that they're "broken promises" rather than whether or they're good decisions. That's the shitty thing about democracy; I think we all agree on this forum that the public is generally retarded. BC Rail: I'm no expert on but I've heard a lot of people on this forum argue that it was a smart decision, that it put a lot of money into the hands of the government to help make a quick recovery from the NDP decade, especially after they had so boldly lied about provincial finances. Casino gambling: are people really still against that? Chocolate and blowjobs should be illegal!1!!!1 But seriously, the NDP and the BC Liberals were in complete agreement in the 90s that opening a casino downtown would be the end of the world (when Wynn tried to do it). Now the attitudes of the province have changed, and with it the government has too. PRO TIP: the NDP support casino gambling expansions too! Oh noes I guess they broke their promises! How dare anything change! An NDP critic even said that he supports making bigger casinos because it means that there will be more to do other than gambling (theatres, restaurants, hotels, and other entertainment). And then there's the HST: pretty much most of the arguments are out here in this thread and it seems a majority on this educated forum supports the tax. Someone on here said something along the lines of "the only reason the NDP doesn't support it seems to be because they didn't think of it first." Think about how much money everyone has saved from the tax cuts since the Liberals took office. We have one of the best/most competitive/cheapest tax systems in the country. Would you really reverse all that to get rid of 7% more expensive specific items?



Cutting spending is not the same as adding a tax, that's a ridiculous assumption. Sure they have the same effect on the bottom line, but you're talking about public perception here. It's a whole new ball game, everybody notices an increased tax especially the level of press the HST is getting, very few people notice a decreased number somewhere in the huge government budget.

And yet they have more ideas than any other party in this province. Seriously, when was the last time the official opposition offered an idea instead of taking the Liberal stance and reversing it. I don't think I've ever heard a single positive idea from the NDP, a single plan of action, and that's no hyperbole.

Its common knowledge among those involved that Gordo was furious about losing the '96 election largely due to his promise to sell BCR, which cost him northern seats. He therefore resolved to "revenge himself" upon the railway should he ever be elected, despite promises to the contrary. And of course, it fit nicely into his standard m.o. of enriching his corporate masters at the expense of British Columbians.

And please, lets retire the tired "the NDP ruined the economy in the Nineties" mantra. Low commodity prices held BC back then, as they did to Tory Don Getty's Alberta.

[mezzanine]

Its common knowledge among those involved that Gordo was furious about losing the '96 election largely due to his promise to sell BCR, which cost him northern seats. He therefore resolved to "revenge himself" upon the railway should he ever be elected, despite promises to the contrary. And of course, it fit nicely into his standard m.o. of enriching his corporate masters at the expense of British Columbians.

And please, lets retire the tired "the NDP ruined the economy in the Nineties" mantra. Low commodity prices held BC back then, as they did to Tory Don Getty's Alberta.

and what does this have to do with a policy of having an HST/VAT?

Even europe, which is much more socialist than here in north america has moved to a VAT due to transparency and tax efficiency.

Why do all (EU) Member States use VAT?

At the time when the European Community was created, the original six Member States were using different forms of indirect taxation, most of which were cascade taxes. These were multi-stage taxes which were each levied on the actual value of output at each stage of the productive process, making it impossible to determine the real amount of tax actually included in the final price of a particular product. As a consequence, there was always a risk that Member States would deliberately or accidentally subsidise their exports by overestimating the taxes refundable on exportation.

It was evident that if there was ever going to be an efficient, single market in Europe, a neutral and transparent turnover tax system was required which ensured tax neutrality and allowed the exact amount of tax to be rebated at the point of export. As explained in VAT on imports and exports, VAT allows for the certainty that exports there are completely and transparently tax-free.


http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/vat/how_vat_works/index_en.htm

[whatnext]

and what does this have to do with a policy of having an HST/VAT?

Goes back to the fact Gordo's a liar. We were told they weren't considering an HST before the election, remember? If it such a great policy, sell it to the electorate and let them decide.

[mezzanine]

Goes back to the fact Gordo's a liar. We were told they weren't considering an HST before the election, remember?

The carbon tax was the taxation flash point with the last election (which is also a good idea...) and I would want a governement to remain flexible wrt taxation esp wrt introducing more transparent policies that other jurisdictions are rolling out (ie. Ontario).

If it such a great policy, sell it to the electorate and let them decide. I would like to think we are having this debate right now. I certainly would not want Bill Vander Zalm, an unelected show-boater, to decide for me.

[cabotp]

The carbon tax was the taxation flash point with the last election (which is also a good idea...) and I would want a governement to remain flexible wrt taxation esp wrt introducing more transparent policies that other jurisdictions are rolling out (ie. Ontario).

I would like to think we are having this debate right now. I certainly would not want Bill Vander Zalm, an unelected show-boater, to decide for me.

Except we should of had that chance of debating the HST during the last election.

This is just a prime example of why campbell is an asshole and always will be an asshole.

[twoNeurons]

At least VAT is included on the pricetag.

[WarrenC12]

The problem here is the uneducated masses will potentially throw out the baby (HST) with the bathwater (Liberals).

I have nightmares about the financial mess we will be in after a 2013 election with the NDP's finger on the trigger while we somehow extract ourselves from the HST.

[Zassk]

Goes back to the fact Gordo's a liar. We were told they weren't considering an HST before the election, remember? If it such a great policy, sell it to the electorate and let them decide.

I believe this was true at the time. One massive thing changed, and unfortunately for Gordo, it occurred right as the B.C. election was taking place.

The thing that changed was that Ontario got an HST agreement, and not just any agreement, but one that was unprecedentedly flexible and lucrative.

In some ways, you could blame the Feds for Gordo's HST plight. BC was basically cornered and forced to pursue Ontario's agreement. It was the worst possible timing for BC (regardless of ruling party), and clearly the feds didn't care.

[twoNeurons]

I think the NDP realizes the "value" of the HST and will instead promise to "lower" it to 11% or 10%. This could also be a card that the Liberals have up their sleeve to get re-elected.

[WarrenC12]

I think the NDP realizes the "value" of the HST and will instead promise to "lower" it to 11% or 10%. This could also be a card that the Liberals have up their sleeve to get re-elected.

Yes, possibly, although they can't do this until 2013 according to the agreement.

All hail comrade James! Sounds like things are getting harsh in NDP land, firing somebody today.

[Zassk]

My great-grandmother was one of the founders of the CCF/NDP. I voted blindly for them, both provincially and federally, from the time I became a voter in the late 80's until the late 90's. I still feel burned and fooled by the provincial NDP. The feeling hasn't dulled with time and James has done nothing to mend those feelings. I'm surprised so many people are ready to give the NDP another chance. The Liberals' antics with HST, etc. doesn't mean the NDP is ready for power or the right choice for the province. I'm glad the next election is still far away.

[Yume-sama]

The mindset that the NDP would *repeal* a tax is almost hilarious. If the HST goes, which is a bit unlikely, you can bet they'd add many others.

The easiest thing to campaign against is a tax. If put up to a vote, no tax would ever pass. But for the NDP to pretend they are anti-tax?! :haha:

[touraccuracy]

^no freakin' kidding.

why would people vote for a self admitted socialist party because they're upset over a tax. fucking morons in this province.

[cabotp]

I think this thread is past its due date and should be locked.

[whatnext]

Jeez, I'm gone for two weeks and nobody even calls Gordo out on his performance last night?! ;)

Nothing like desperate attempts to buy off the electorate with tax policy made on the fly.

[sacrifice333]

I thought he was great!!! :) Really impressive 'public' speaking.

But really WhatNext... Value Added Taxes are good tax policy... regardless of the PR used to implement them.

/end story

[whatnext]

I thought he was great!!! :) Really impressive 'public' speaking.

But really WhatNext... Value Added Taxes are good tax policy... regardless of the PR used to implement them.

/end story

Even if VAT is good policy, doling out tax cuts on the fly definitely is not. How much costing really factored into his cynical attempt to buy voter approval? If the BC Libs are going to blow their own horn on being sound fiscal managers, they're going to have to do better than that. Remember how they blasted the NDP over ICBC rebate cheques? This is just the same thing on a greater and more damaging scale. Epic fail.

[dleung]

The HST was the right thing, but I agree its only sensible to accompany it with either a tax cut or a reduction of the HST itself. Better too late than never.

[WarrenC12]

Even if VAT is good policy, doling out tax cuts on the fly definitely is not. How much costing really factored into his cynical attempt to buy voter approval? If the BC Libs are going to blow their own horn on being sound fiscal managers, they're going to have to do better than that. Remember how they blasted the NDP over ICBC rebate cheques? This is just the same thing on a greater and more damaging scale. Epic fail.

Nothing wrong with reducing income taxes, especially for the range that these cuts applied to.

Sure it's vote buying, but it's a heck of a lot better than the NDP's efforts such as the ICBC checks you mention, as well as the bailing out of union industries that are doomed to fail.

Carole James was asked point blank after Gordo's speech if the NDP would vote against this cut, and she said they would. What an amateur.

People have short memories if they think the NDP will make a better government. No doubt Gordo needs to go, but the HST should stay, and the NDP should be kept out of power.