Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Canada] Politics of the Democratic Friedmanite Republic of the Government of Harper

16465676970100

Posts

  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    psyck0 wrote: »
    Because the Liberals are a shit-tastic party with nothing but terrible (read: conservative) ideas, who privatised BC ferries, cut the wages of most health workers by 50%, laid off about 1/4 of the government work force (and then hired them back over a few years because they realised that the government actually needs those people to function, but never told the public that part), etc, etc? Or because it was the entire party, not just Cambell, who was responsible for HST and so we need to punish them all? Or because her current ideas are also terrible? Or because she's the one who resigned in a huff because she didn't get the ministry she wanted last time she held office, demonstrating that she only cares about her own power and authority and not about serving the province?

    Or the fact that the BC NDP is not, in fact, awful, although I don't much care for the current leader.

    LOL, HST is a good thing, it was wrong to promise the electorate they wouldnt implement it, but it saves the government money and simplifies the tax code for businesses. Only the peanut gallery thinks its a bad thing.

    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
    Brave Frontier: Adamski (481 077 56)
    Puzzles & Dragons: Adamski@pa (313 842 296)
  • saggiosaggio Registered User regular
    psyck0 wrote: »
    Because the Liberals are a shit-tastic party with nothing but terrible (read: conservative) ideas, who privatised BC ferries, cut the wages of most health workers by 50%, laid off about 1/4 of the government work force (and then hired them back over a few years because they realised that the government actually needs those people to function, but never told the public that part), etc, etc? Or because it was the entire party, not just Cambell, who was responsible for HST and so we need to punish them all? Or because her current ideas are also terrible? Or because she's the one who resigned in a huff because she didn't get the ministry she wanted last time she held office, demonstrating that she only cares about her own power and authority and not about serving the province?

    Or the fact that the BC NDP is not, in fact, awful, although I don't much care for the current leader.

    LOL, HST is a good thing, it was wrong to promise the electorate they wouldnt implement it, but it saves the government money and simplifies the tax code for businesses. Only the peanut gallery thinks its a bad thing.

    Actually, all those people who voted in the referendum against the tax thought it was a bad idea. I don't want to quibble, but it was a majority of voters.

    3DS: 0232-9436-6893
  • SloSlo Registered User regular
    saggio wrote: »
    psyck0 wrote: »
    Because the Liberals are a shit-tastic party with nothing but terrible (read: conservative) ideas, who privatised BC ferries, cut the wages of most health workers by 50%, laid off about 1/4 of the government work force (and then hired them back over a few years because they realised that the government actually needs those people to function, but never told the public that part), etc, etc? Or because it was the entire party, not just Cambell, who was responsible for HST and so we need to punish them all? Or because her current ideas are also terrible? Or because she's the one who resigned in a huff because she didn't get the ministry she wanted last time she held office, demonstrating that she only cares about her own power and authority and not about serving the province?

    Or the fact that the BC NDP is not, in fact, awful, although I don't much care for the current leader.

    LOL, HST is a good thing, it was wrong to promise the electorate they wouldnt implement it, but it saves the government money and simplifies the tax code for businesses. Only the peanut gallery thinks its a bad thing.

    Actually, all those people who voted in the referendum against the tax thought it was a bad idea. I don't want to quibble, but it was a majority of voters.

    They laid off those workers and re hired them so they would fall under not crazy contracts which the npd drafted up. Yes, under handed, but the ndp throw around too much cash.

    Uhg, majority voted down hst, yes. And if California taught us anything, majority votes on taxes works so well. That just means thee majority of teachers who want more money voted down the hst, and are still complaining. People are terrible at financing, they shouldn't direct government taxation.

    Ps on my phone, apologies for scatter brained-ness.

  • CorporateGoonCorporateGoon Registered User regular
    saggio wrote: »
    psyck0 wrote: »
    Because the Liberals are a shit-tastic party with nothing but terrible (read: conservative) ideas, who privatised BC ferries, cut the wages of most health workers by 50%, laid off about 1/4 of the government work force (and then hired them back over a few years because they realised that the government actually needs those people to function, but never told the public that part), etc, etc? Or because it was the entire party, not just Cambell, who was responsible for HST and so we need to punish them all? Or because her current ideas are also terrible? Or because she's the one who resigned in a huff because she didn't get the ministry she wanted last time she held office, demonstrating that she only cares about her own power and authority and not about serving the province?

    Or the fact that the BC NDP is not, in fact, awful, although I don't much care for the current leader.

    LOL, HST is a good thing, it was wrong to promise the electorate they wouldnt implement it, but it saves the government money and simplifies the tax code for businesses. Only the peanut gallery thinks its a bad thing.

    Actually, all those people who voted in the referendum against the tax thought it was a bad idea. I don't want to quibble, but it was a majority of voters.

    It seems really silly to vote for a less efficient government and, ultimately, higher prices for goods and services because you're angry about being lied to.

  • CaedwyrCaedwyr Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Funny thing was, the corporations didn't pass on their savings from the HST to the public. It was a transfer of corporate tax burden to the general public.

    Also, I'd argue that letting a government know that it won't always get away with lying to the public, is something that is important for democracy.

    Caedwyr on
    steam_sig.png
  • psyck0psyck0 Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    psyck0 wrote: »
    Because the Liberals are a shit-tastic party with nothing but terrible (read: conservative) ideas, who privatised BC ferries, cut the wages of most health workers by 50%, laid off about 1/4 of the government work force (and then hired them back over a few years because they realised that the government actually needs those people to function, but never told the public that part), etc, etc? Or because it was the entire party, not just Cambell, who was responsible for HST and so we need to punish them all? Or because her current ideas are also terrible? Or because she's the one who resigned in a huff because she didn't get the ministry she wanted last time she held office, demonstrating that she only cares about her own power and authority and not about serving the province?

    Or the fact that the BC NDP is not, in fact, awful, although I don't much care for the current leader.

    LOL, HST is a good thing, it was wrong to promise the electorate they wouldnt implement it, but it saves the government money and simplifies the tax code for businesses. Only the peanut gallery thinks its a bad thing.

    HST may very well have been a good thing, but the government specifically said during their election campaign that they were not even considering it, denied having had any discussions with the federal government about it, and then introduced it under 2 months later. In other words, they lied about a major change to the tax code during their campaign. That is absolutely unacceptable, and the bastards need to be thrown out so we can teach politicians that it is not acceptable to lie to us. It would have been nice to be able to keep HST, but the message was more important. Oh, and HST did not lead to lower prices in any way. You should know by now that trickle down is nothing but a lie thrown around by conservatives to justify their greed.

    Slo, I've never seen you before. Please tell me exactly how the NDP throws around too much cash. Is it by paying government workers enough to live on? Is it by not illegally legislating unions back to work? Is it by investing in our education and hiring enough teachers to adequately staff our school?

    psyck0 on
    Big Man in training.
    steam_sig.png
  • CorporateGoonCorporateGoon Registered User regular
    Voting out a lying government at the next election is fine. Getting rid of the HST was just the BC electorate cutting off its nose to spite its face. Prices on goods fell in Atlantic Canada when the HST was introduced there, and there's no reason to think it wouldn't have happened eventually in BC.

  • psyck0psyck0 Registered User regular
    Other than the fact that we've had it for a year and prices haven't changed, of course. But don't let facts get in the way of your ideology.

    Big Man in training.
    steam_sig.png
  • CorporateGoonCorporateGoon Registered User regular
    psyck0 wrote: »
    Other than the fact that we've had it for a year and prices haven't changed, of course. But don't let facts get in the way of your ideology.

    You do know how things like that work, right? The prices don't drop overnight. Especially when people in the province immediately start making a stink about it and hold a referendum to repeal it less than a year after implementation. But, don't let facts get in the way of your ideology.

  • CanadianWolverineCanadianWolverine Registered User regular
    They sure rise pretty fast with the price of gas here on the island though :P

    steam_sig.png
  • psyck0psyck0 Registered User regular
    psyck0 wrote: »
    Other than the fact that we've had it for a year and prices haven't changed, of course. But don't let facts get in the way of your ideology.

    You do know how things like that work, right? The prices don't drop overnight. Especially when people in the province immediately start making a stink about it and hold a referendum to repeal it less than a year after implementation. But, don't let facts get in the way of your ideology.

    You're actually arguing that even though we didn't see a change in the price of goods a year after HST came in, if we'd just waited longer, it would have happened? And you actually believe that? How about you loan me a few grand, and I'll pay it back in a month or two. Oh, it might actually be a year, or maybe 5. Just trust me, you'll get it back eventually.

    Business almost NEVER pass on any cost decreases to consumers. If you believe otherwise you're insane. Also, HST really hurt some businesses like restaurants, which were PST exempt before the HST. The cost to visit a restaurant actually went UP by about 7% because of HST and business for them dropped off significantly.

    Big Man in training.
    steam_sig.png
  • hippofanthippofant Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    psyck0 wrote: »
    psyck0 wrote: »
    Other than the fact that we've had it for a year and prices haven't changed, of course. But don't let facts get in the way of your ideology.

    You do know how things like that work, right? The prices don't drop overnight. Especially when people in the province immediately start making a stink about it and hold a referendum to repeal it less than a year after implementation. But, don't let facts get in the way of your ideology.

    You're actually arguing that even though we didn't see a change in the price of goods a year after HST came in, if we'd just waited longer, it would have happened? And you actually believe that? How about you loan me a few grand, and I'll pay it back in a month or two. Oh, it might actually be a year, or maybe 5. Just trust me, you'll get it back eventually.

    Business almost NEVER pass on any cost decreases to consumers. If you believe otherwise you're insane. Also, HST really hurt some businesses like restaurants, which were PST exempt before the HST. The cost to visit a restaurant actually went UP by about 7% because of HST and business for them dropped off significantly.

    I believe the point is that a small business owner isn't going to lower prices by 8% for a year and then re-raise them a year later if the HST gets repealed. Large businesses are a different issue, what with their being national or multi-national, such that the taxation change in a particular province might not even register as something that would induce a price change, particularly if the prices are consistent across Canada. For both, they're unlikely to lower prices for at least a year, after which they can redo their books and the initial drop-off in business as a result of the HST levels off (since people can't protest it by not buying things forever, or until it's repealed).

    Also, I'm pretty sure Walmart does.

    hippofant on
  • psyck0psyck0 Registered User regular
    So it has actually been 3 years since HST was announced and nearly 2 since it was implemented. That gave businesses a year to prepare and another year before the referendum. We saw no price changes, and many bars and restaurants go out of business. And you're saying that wasn't long enough?

    Big Man in training.
    steam_sig.png
  • shrykeshryke Registered User regular
    How long did it take for prices to change in other areas that implemented HST?

    Without that information, saying they should have already changed or they didn't change yet is meaningless.

  • CorporateGoonCorporateGoon Registered User regular
    psyck0 wrote: »
    So it has actually been 3 years since HST was announced and nearly 2 since it was implemented. That gave businesses a year to prepare and another year before the referendum. We saw no price changes, and many bars and restaurants go out of business. And you're saying that wasn't long enough?

    I don't see why it matters when it was announced. Business can't pass savings on to customers until those savings have been realized, so the HST could've been announced 100 years ago and it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference. Secondly, since the repeal movement began right when (or possibly before) the merger was instituted, most businesses would adopt a "wait and see" attitude before changing their prices. Which turned out to be a good plan since the HST was repealed via referendum. There's now no point in lowering prices since they'd just have to raise them again when the taxes split.

    There are a limited number of things a business can do when its operating costs decrease: It can pass the excess profits to the owners, invest them back into the company, or lower the cost of goods and services. If that third one happens in even a single case, the consumer gets lower prices. And even if it doesn't, extra profits for the owners and investment into the businesses ARE BOTH GOOD THINGS FOR THE PROVINCE. Besides, in at least three provinces the savings were passed on to consumers to at least some extent, so your "almost NEVER" point is total bullshit.

    The effect on bars and restaurants is regrettable, but it has little to do with the lowering of operating costs. They were essentially operating with a competitive advantage not granted to businesses that had to charge PST, and they suffered when the playing field was leveled. The consumer dollars that they lost would go elsewhere in the economy, though, so while bad for some sectors, the HST is good for others. I would expect the accounting profession to suffer as well.

  • hippofanthippofant Registered User regular
    Also needs to be considered is the fact that the price of most things have gone up since 2008 pretty substantially due to the increase in oil prices. You have to somehow normalize for the general increase in their costs before accusing businesses of not lowering prices post-HST.

    I'm not necessarily saying the HST was a good thing. I'm just saying it's a lot more complicated than, "prices didn't go down and some businesses went under!" Those things might have happened anyways, or been even worse. I mean, the general problem of Canadian prices not going down when our currency went up is well known; there are other forces beyond just supply and demand at play here.

  • CaedwyrCaedwyr Registered User regular
    I'm sure if we waited long enough, the reduced costs would trickle down. That's how it works in the States, right? Low taxes on corporations results in lower costs for consumers, because the corporations pass on their tax savings to consumers.

    steam_sig.png
  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    Caedwyr wrote: »
    Funny thing was, the corporations didn't pass on their savings from the HST to the public. It was a transfer of corporate tax burden to the general public.

    Also, I'd argue that letting a government know that it won't always get away with lying to the public, is something that is important for democracy.
    Thats not how HST works. HST is where the Provincial government allows the Feds to collect all the PST under the new HST. Then the Provincial government no longer needs to maintain their own seperate workforce for sales taxes, because the Feds handle everything. Also, due to the way the taxes are harmonized, businesses are now reimbursed for all the taxes they pay on their supplies, instead of only the GST portion. That is all that changes. There is no transfer of the tax burden, technically there never really is, the corporations just find a new price point that people are willing to pay, while blaming the government the people elected, in order to try and social engineer the voters into voting in more business friendly governments.

    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
    Brave Frontier: Adamski (481 077 56)
    Puzzles & Dragons: Adamski@pa (313 842 296)
  • CaedwyrCaedwyr Registered User regular
    Caedwyr wrote: »
    Funny thing was, the corporations didn't pass on their savings from the HST to the public. It was a transfer of corporate tax burden to the general public.

    Also, I'd argue that letting a government know that it won't always get away with lying to the public, is something that is important for democracy.
    Thats not how HST works. HST is where the Provincial government allows the Feds to collect all the PST under the new HST. Then the Provincial government no longer needs to maintain their own seperate workforce for sales taxes, because the Feds handle everything. Also, due to the way the taxes are harmonized, businesses are now reimbursed for all the taxes they pay on their supplies, instead of only the GST portion. That is all that changes. There is no transfer of the tax burden, technically there never really is, the corporations just find a new price point that people are willing to pay, while blaming the government the people elected, in order to try and social engineer the voters into voting in more business friendly governments.


    Could you please explain how this article is wrong about how the tax burden is shifted around?

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2009/03/27/f-tax-faq.html

    Specifically, sections like the following:
    The Ontario Chamber of Commerce believes a fully blended system would cost consumers approximately $905 million in additional sales taxes per year, while the GST and PST bill for companies would fall by $1.6 billion annually.

    This seems to indicate that consumers pay extra and corporations pay less... pretty much the definition of a shifting of the tax burden. How is this understanding of the tax system incorrect?

    steam_sig.png
  • hippofanthippofant Registered User regular
    Caedwyr wrote: »
    I'm sure if we waited long enough, the reduced costs would trickle down. That's how it works in the States, right? Low taxes on corporations results in lower costs for consumers, because the corporations pass on their tax savings to consumers.

    A corporate tax is a distinctly different form of tax than a sales tax.

    Please. Are you seriously implying I'm some sort of right-wing neo-con?

  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    Caedwyr wrote: »
    Caedwyr wrote: »
    Funny thing was, the corporations didn't pass on their savings from the HST to the public. It was a transfer of corporate tax burden to the general public.

    Also, I'd argue that letting a government know that it won't always get away with lying to the public, is something that is important for democracy.
    Thats not how HST works. HST is where the Provincial government allows the Feds to collect all the PST under the new HST. Then the Provincial government no longer needs to maintain their own seperate workforce for sales taxes, because the Feds handle everything. Also, due to the way the taxes are harmonized, businesses are now reimbursed for all the taxes they pay on their supplies, instead of only the GST portion. That is all that changes. There is no transfer of the tax burden, technically there never really is, the corporations just find a new price point that people are willing to pay, while blaming the government the people elected, in order to try and social engineer the voters into voting in more business friendly governments.


    Could you please explain how this article is wrong about how the tax burden is shifted around?

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2009/03/27/f-tax-faq.html

    Specifically, sections like the following:
    The Ontario Chamber of Commerce believes a fully blended system would cost consumers approximately $905 million in additional sales taxes per year, while the GST and PST bill for companies would fall by $1.6 billion annually.

    This seems to indicate that consumers pay extra and corporations pay less... pretty much the definition of a shifting of the tax burden. How is this understanding of the tax system incorrect?

    It says what I said, but adds in that some items that were formerly exempt under 1 tax, are no longer exempt, so some items will have increased taxation. So its up to the government to decide what items need to be completely exempt from tax, and which ones dont need to be exempt, instead of a hodgepodge of some items were exempt from PST but not GST or vice versa.

    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
    Brave Frontier: Adamski (481 077 56)
    Puzzles & Dragons: Adamski@pa (313 842 296)
  • CaedwyrCaedwyr Registered User regular
    What I'm trying to ask, is how does a change in the taxation system that results in greater costs for consumers and reduced costs for corporations not a shifting of the tax burden. Previously corporations/companies paid more, consumers paid less. Now corporations/companies pay less and consumers pay more. How is this not a shifting of the tax burden from the companies to the consumers?

    steam_sig.png
  • CaedwyrCaedwyr Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    Caedwyr wrote: »
    I'm sure if we waited long enough, the reduced costs would trickle down. That's how it works in the States, right? Low taxes on corporations results in lower costs for consumers, because the corporations pass on their tax savings to consumers.

    A corporate tax is a distinctly different form of tax than a sales tax.

    Please. Are you seriously implying I'm some sort of right-wing neo-con?

    No, I'm not trying to imply you are a neo-con. I'm just trying to figure out why people are saying that this is a good tax policy change for consumers? The consumers see increased costs, and if the past few years have been any indication corporations don't tend to increase their spending due to reduced taxes to a noticeable degree, or pass along tax savings to the consumer.

    steam_sig.png
  • hippofanthippofant Registered User regular
    Caedwyr wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    Caedwyr wrote: »
    I'm sure if we waited long enough, the reduced costs would trickle down. That's how it works in the States, right? Low taxes on corporations results in lower costs for consumers, because the corporations pass on their tax savings to consumers.

    A corporate tax is a distinctly different form of tax than a sales tax.

    Please. Are you seriously implying I'm some sort of right-wing neo-con?

    No, I'm not trying to imply you are a neo-con. I'm just trying to figure out why people are saying that this is a good tax policy change for consumers? The consumers see increased costs, and if the past few years have been any indication corporations don't tend to increase their spending due to reduced taxes to a noticeable degree, or pass along tax savings to the consumer.

    I wouldn't profess to have proof that it does in this case, BUT a sales tax is a decidedly different beast than a corporate tax to a business - and we are talking businesseshere, and not so much corporations, since the HST change is not size-dependent. For example, on the flip side, (I believe that) we know that an increase in sales tax is more likely to deter consumer spending than an increase in their income tax. The converse might be true vis a vis decreases for producers and providers?

    I really would think that small businesses, particularly those that are struggling, would lower their prices after an HST implementation, given enough time and confidence. A big corporation might not, but as a small business owner, I'd probably prefer the extra business over the 4-5% extra revenue,though, depending on my typical profit margin, the % of that might be much higher.... Still, I'd be rather unlikely to consider that a windfall and splurge on a vacation home or something.

  • shrykeshryke Registered User regular
    A lowering of the tax burden on a business will increase their profit margins. This gives them more room to lower their prices. It doesn't force them to do so though.

    What does, generally, force them to do so is competition. (ie - since you can afford to drop the price of X by $20 now, you do so in order to get more customers and increase your overall profits) And that's dependant on the specific market.

  • psyck0psyck0 Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    I'm not necessarily saying the HST was a good thing. I'm just saying it's a lot more complicated than, "prices didn't go down and some businesses went under!" Those things might have happened anyways, or been even worse. I mean, the general problem of Canadian prices not going down when our currency went up is well known; there are other forces beyond just supply and demand at play here.

    And I said earlier that I wasn't arguing that HST was bad, I was arguing that it had to go because of they way it was brought in. The message was more important than any benefits from the tax. I was also calling bullshit on Gnome's ridiculous claims. I don't think he even lives here, so how the hell would he know what prices have been doing?
    psyck0 wrote: »
    So it has actually been 3 years since HST was announced and nearly 2 since it was implemented. That gave businesses a year to prepare and another year before the referendum. We saw no price changes, and many bars and restaurants go out of business. And you're saying that wasn't long enough?

    I don't see why it matters when it was announced. Business can't pass savings on to customers until those savings have been realized, so the HST could've been announced 100 years ago and it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference. Secondly, since the repeal movement began right when (or possibly before) the merger was instituted, most businesses would adopt a "wait and see" attitude before changing their prices. Which turned out to be a good plan since the HST was repealed via referendum. There's now no point in lowering prices since they'd just have to raise them again when the taxes split.

    Come on now. They had an entire year to plan for the changes and anticipate the different costs and change their pricing; they didn't lower prices. Even though there was a legal challenge, they knew they would have well over a year of lowered cost of doing business. If they really wanted to, that's plenty of time to pass on any savings. You're essentially arguing that corporations should never lower prices in response to tax breaks because one day, years down the road, the tax might go back up. Now, that's what corporations actually do in the real world, but you're arguing that in this special case they would have if we'd just been nice enough to them. Let's just "wait and see" because next month the economy might go in the shitter or a war might break out and we never know when we'll need those $500,000,000,000 that we have stockpiled.

    Fuck the corporations. Giving them tax breaks does fuck all for consumers. It almost always has done, and I see no reason for that to change.

    Big Man in training.
    steam_sig.png
  • shrykeshryke Registered User regular
    Why would businesses lower their prices BEFORE they saw any tax savings?

    Also, prices do respond to changes in tax burden. It's just a matter of how quickly and how much.

    And finally, if businesses were expecting taxes to go back up soon, they would probably hold off lowering prices. There's a very real, very tangible difference between "taxes might go up again some day" and "taxes might go up again next year due to the current political climate".

  • psyck0psyck0 Registered User regular
    They wouldn't, but they could sure as hell be ready for HST and make changes within a couple of months.

    Big Man in training.
    steam_sig.png
  • shrykeshryke Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    psyck0 wrote: »
    They wouldn't, but they could sure as hell be ready for HST and make changes within a couple of months.

    Why would they make changes within a couple of months?

    shryke on
  • CorporateGoonCorporateGoon Registered User regular
    psyck0 wrote: »
    They wouldn't, but they could sure as hell be ready for HST and make changes within a couple of months.

    They could have, and might have made changes by now if the petition to repeal the HST hadn't been filed four days after it was first implemented. They don't necessarily want to lower prices, though. Market forces make them do it. Just because it didn't happen fast enough for your tastes does not change the fact that it does happen, as evidenced by the implementation of this very same tax change in three other provinces fifteen or so years ago.

  • hippofanthippofant Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    psyck0 wrote: »
    They wouldn't, but they could sure as hell be ready for HST and make changes within a couple of months.

    Why would they make changes within a couple of months?

    To be reckless and risk your business? Many businesses work on annual cycles - like toy stores. While a toy store COULD change their prices in the middle of November following the introduction of an HST*, the havoc a misadjustment could wreak on the Christmas season could kill the store. But similarly, you don't want to make a change in March, potentially sparking a price war with your competitors, while having no idea as to how such a change plays out come the holiday season, because you have no data on it at all.

    Another reason for lag is that these businesses are not wholly independent of one another. They interact with one another in supply chains. If my supplier doesn't lower her/his price, how can I lower mine?

    * I don't recall when the HST was actually introduced. Just an example.

  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    psyck0 wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    I'm not necessarily saying the HST was a good thing. I'm just saying it's a lot more complicated than, "prices didn't go down and some businesses went under!" Those things might have happened anyways, or been even worse. I mean, the general problem of Canadian prices not going down when our currency went up is well known; there are other forces beyond just supply and demand at play here.

    And I said earlier that I wasn't arguing that HST was bad, I was arguing that it had to go because of they way it was brought in. The message was more important than any benefits from the tax. I was also calling bullshit on Gnome's ridiculous claims. I don't think he even lives here, so how the hell would he know what prices have been doing?
    psyck0 wrote: »
    So it has actually been 3 years since HST was announced and nearly 2 since it was implemented. That gave businesses a year to prepare and another year before the referendum. We saw no price changes, and many bars and restaurants go out of business. And you're saying that wasn't long enough?

    I don't see why it matters when it was announced. Business can't pass savings on to customers until those savings have been realized, so the HST could've been announced 100 years ago and it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference. Secondly, since the repeal movement began right when (or possibly before) the merger was instituted, most businesses would adopt a "wait and see" attitude before changing their prices. Which turned out to be a good plan since the HST was repealed via referendum. There's now no point in lowering prices since they'd just have to raise them again when the taxes split.

    Come on now. They had an entire year to plan for the changes and anticipate the different costs and change their pricing; they didn't lower prices. Even though there was a legal challenge, they knew they would have well over a year of lowered cost of doing business. If they really wanted to, that's plenty of time to pass on any savings. You're essentially arguing that corporations should never lower prices in response to tax breaks because one day, years down the road, the tax might go back up. Now, that's what corporations actually do in the real world, but you're arguing that in this special case they would have if we'd just been nice enough to them. Let's just "wait and see" because next month the economy might go in the shitter or a war might break out and we never know when we'll need those $500,000,000,000 that we have stockpiled.

    Fuck the corporations. Giving them tax breaks does fuck all for consumers. It almost always has done, and I see no reason for that to change.
    Feel free to quote any "bullshit" posts of mine that you had to refute you goose.

    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
    Brave Frontier: Adamski (481 077 56)
    Puzzles & Dragons: Adamski@pa (313 842 296)
  • saggiosaggio Registered User regular
    Dear people who aren't from BC:

    Your political insights into the HST are basically useless and without merit.

    Signed,

    The people of BC

    3DS: 0232-9436-6893
  • saggiosaggio Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Also:

    When the HST was introduced, two things happened. First, the BC Liberals cut the corporate taxation rate yet again. Second, the PST ceased to exist, and all of its rules and deductions and so on were abolished. In a number of areas, including for restaurant food but also children's clothing, prices immediately went up 7%.

    While at the same time the corporate tax rate was reduced. That is a taxation shift, I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise. It may be preferable, or it may be not; but it still is a shift. Along with being lied to during an election campaign, that is the reason why such a large percentage of the electorate voted against the tax. They saw no economic benefit to it for themselves, which is the very definition of economic self interest, which is supposed to be the thing which all of us base our decisions on.

    Or are you, dear thread posters, suggesting that people not simply look at their own narrow economic interest? Shocking.

    saggio on
    3DS: 0232-9436-6893
  • hippofanthippofant Registered User regular
    saggio wrote: »
    Or are you, dear thread posters, suggesting that people not simply look at their own narrow economic interest? Shocking.

    Of course, that is exactly what we're saying.

    Don't be a tool.

  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    Slo wrote: »
    the ndp throw around too much cash.
    OOqGK.gif

  • saggiosaggio Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    saggio wrote: »
    Or are you, dear thread posters, suggesting that people not simply look at their own narrow economic interest? Shocking.

    Of course, that is exactly what we're saying.

    Don't be a tool.

    I'm not entirely sure why I need to consider the immediate economic well being of others, especially businesses when they don't do the same for me.

    That's what I'm trying to get at. There is no reciprocity. The HST may have been "better" for businesses in that value added taxes generally cost firms less, but that ignores the very real price increases regular people got stuck with as a result of harmonization. Two competing interests; who should win out? Well, we've had over a decade of a government who thinks that business, especially large business should have its interests attended to first and foremost. People get tired of that, and got especially angry over the HST.

    Moreover, the way most of you thread posters write about BC politics convinces me that you are generally living somewhere to the east of the Rockies. The political culture is very different here, very polarized, and very much based on economic class divisions. If you actually go and look at the distribution of votes for killing the HST versus against killing it, you'll notice that pretty much all the affluent areas voted to keep the tax, while poorer areas in both urban and rural BC voted to kill it.

    You can wave all sorts of economic equations in front of people, but that still won't negate or in anyway lessen the impact of a person's individual experience. Unlike other taxes like user fees or even income tax, the HST is in your face every single day. I still remember the day that the price of drinks went up at Tim Horton's, and a lot of folks do too. You can ignore that if you want, I guess, but it just will expose how completely out of touch you are with the way politics actually works.

    3DS: 0232-9436-6893
  • hippofanthippofant Registered User regular
    saggio wrote: »
    Moreover, the way most of you thread posters write about BC politics convinces me that you are generally living somewhere to the east of the Rockies.

    I have not once actually mentioned BC, a BC politician, BC voters, or a BC political party in the past page or so. We're arguing with psyk0 about HSTs, which have also been implemented here in Ontario, where, quite frankly, nobody really seems to give a shit any more. I am personally not pro-HST, and I think Caedwyr brings up a good point re. the overall tax burden, but I'm mostly responding to psyk0's shitty points. I'm not sure anybody's even talking about BC in particular any more. The last oblique reference to BC was CorporateGoon, some 30 posts ago:
    Voting out a lying government at the next election is fine. Getting rid of the HST was just the BC electorate cutting off its nose to spite its face. Prices on goods fell in Atlantic Canada when the HST was introduced there, and there's no reason to think it wouldn't have happened eventually in BC.

    And again, more about HST than BC really.

  • NODeNODe Registered User
    Voted today. Not especially happy with who I voted for, but I literally haven't seen anything at all from our Liberal or NDP candidate so my vote defaulted to Not-Wildrose.

  • EtiowsaEtiowsa TorontoRegistered User regular
    Holy shit, Dalton caved. cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/04/23/ontario-budget-time-running-out-for-deal-liberals-ndp.html

    I'm honestly really surprised. I don't think Horwath would've let the government fall, but shit, I'm not gonna complain.

    janenext.jpg
This discussion has been closed.