[unimaginative2]

HST is 13% everywhere and can not be raised or lowered by the Provinces, hence the term Harmonised. Participation in this system removes the ability to adjust the level of taxation from the Provincial governments.

That's not true. Provinces can set whatever tax they like. In Ontario, the province is also including certain exemptions that aren't in place in other HST provinces.

 

[spider]

Originally Posted by spider
HST is 13% everywhere and can not be raised or lowered by the Provinces, hence the term Harmonised. Participation in this system removes the ability to adjust the level of taxation from the Provincial governments.

That's not true. Provinces can set whatever tax they like. In Ontario, the province is also including certain exemptions that aren't in place in other HST provinces.

So, the Provinces can set any rate of tax they like and it is just a coincidence they all chose 8%. Items on which the GST is due will be subject to a 13% rate, the Provinces can't declare exemptions on the PST component of the HST.

 

[nfitz]

So, the Provinces can set any rate of tax they like and it is just a coincidence they all chose 8%.

No ... the tax is harmonized in Québec, and the total tax there is 13.4%.

 

[spider]

As in most things Quebec does it a little differently.

The GST is collected by Quebec, not the Feds. They call it Harmonised but no one else in Canada does, including the Federal government.

 

[nfitz]

It all dates back to during the Mulroney government, Quebec was the only province that had any interest in harmonization. So they got a different deal than was offered later.

 

[spider]

That may well be so but Quebec is not a participant to the HST protocol we are discussing here.

If Bob's Bird House Emporium located in Ontario sells a bird house he bills sales tax as follows:

Ontario, GST 5%, + PST 8%
Quebec, GST 5%, + PST 0%
N. Brunswick, HST 15%

Please see:
http://www.canadabusiness.ca/servle...4&lang=en&pagename=CBSC_ON/display&c=Services

 

[toraerach]

Not true. We paid for all those things when Ontario had PST rates of 7%, 5%, 4%, 3% and 0% (and I'm not advocating a return to 0%).

We might have been able to support those services with lower sales taxes in the past, but things have changed. Schools, hospitals, police and many other institutions now rely on or otherwise need more expensive technology. Our population is aging, and healthcare will only become a bigger burden on taxpayers over the next few decades. Infrastructure likewise is aging and needs to be replaced, new environmental laws need to be upheld, and dramatic changes have happened to income and business taxes.

 

[GenerationW]

We might have been able to support those services with lower sales taxes in the past, but things have changed. Schools, hospitals, police and many other institutions now rely on or otherwise need more expensive technology. Our population is aging, and healthcare will only become a bigger burden on taxpayers over the next few decades. Infrastructure likewise is aging and needs to be replaced, new environmental laws need to be upheld, and dramatic changes have happened to income and business taxes.

Great, so let's avoid the rush and bump it up to 25% then.

 

[afransen]

^ Sounds good!

 

[Tewder]

Sure, the feds and their "download everything!" strategy didn't help matters. But whatever the reason, after Harris & Eves, McGuinty absolutely needed to increase spending - especially in critical areas like healthcare and education - to restore them to what they once were.

I'd like to believe that we get the government we need at the time. This is a pretty unpartisan belief but I think that opposing approaches actually help the province in the long run. We needed a conservative approach following Rae, and yes we probably needed a more liberal approach following Harris when the economy/debt had been turned around. Fine enough.

While I do always think there's room for cost savings through efficiency in government, it's a bit of a political red herring in my opinion. Conservative governments do tend to 'find savings' when they enter office, but generally it's through cutting healthcare, education, welfare and infrastructure. That's not being fiscally conservative - that's just screwing people over.

Exercising restraint and responsibility with public funds is not 'screwing people over'. It is being respectful of the hard-working Ontario taxpayer and his/her money. Don't lose sight that government tax income represents your money/funds that *you* earned, that in the absence of taxation/lower taxation you would chose to spend/save as you see fit. If the government is going to take away basic choice and freedom with our money it is only reasonable and right that we expect that those funds be allocated responsibly.

 

[Tewder]

I would point out that the waste/corruption to which you refer both involved microscopic amounts of money in the context of the respective budgets. Insofar as you only provide anecdotal evidence, it is not clear that 'there is no shortage' of corruption/waste to cut.

The amounts are irrelevent. The loss of trust is enormous. Taxpayers have been paying the fox to guard the henhouse for too long...

I've given you only two examples but how many more are there that we know of, nevermind the ones we don't? Loto fraud? Pork-barrel spending through massive expensive regional 'development' funds? Huge bloated bureaucracies dumping funds to use up year-end budget surpluses? Government and labour unions artificially jacking up wages and salaries? We could go on and on. These are not microscopic amounts. They add to millions and billions in abused tax funds that a) could remain in our pockets or b) could better fund the social programs that are truly ailing.

 

[Whoaccio]

I always got the feeling that periodic bouts of cost cutting in the long term help governments by functioning as a sort of diet. Ideally governments would just do what they are tasked to do as efficiently as possible all the time and there would never be a need for such a diet. In reality though good times tend to just see spending rise with little thought for efficiencies. So, in absence of a self improving bureaucracy, even seemingly catastrophic periods can be beneficial for the public in the long term.

I forget the person's name, but a researcher at SFU actually looked at Mike Harris' impact on Ontario's welfare program in particular and found notable benefits of the CSR. I don't want to butcher his research from memory, but the general theme was that during Rae's government welfare had outgrown it's nominal goal of helping the poor through temporary job disturbances into a long term dependency program. The welfare trap. The CSR had the effect of improving the welfare system's performance by encouraging claimants to rejoin the workforce rather than remain on welfare.

A neat example off the top of my head would be the Canadian Forces. Probably the poster child of government services being grossly underfunded, I would go so far as to say this has had upsides for the organization itself. Clearly, the CF has avoided most of the boneheaded defense acquisition white elephants that plague well funded groups like the US or French armies. They don't even have the choice of buying the infamous 600$ toilet seats. Maybe this austerity is a little long term, but I would be comfortable in stating that the CF is in some ways more efficient because of it.

 

[adma]

Retch if you want, but I found this image interesting to stumble upon

 

[afransen]

The amounts are irrelevent. The loss of trust is enormous. Taxpayers have been paying the fox to guard the henhouse for too long...

I've given you only two examples but how many more are there that we know of, nevermind the ones we don't? Loto fraud? Pork-barrel spending through massive expensive regional 'development' funds? Huge bloated bureaucracies dumping funds to use up year-end budget surpluses? Government and labour unions artificially jacking up wages and salaries? We could go on and on. These are not microscopic amounts. They add to millions and billions in abused tax funds that a) could remain in our pockets or b) could better fund the social programs that are truly ailing.

Fair enough. I'd say there is likely a fair amount of waste if we include wage premiums for public sector unionized employees. Actual corruption though? I'm afraid I'd need some evidence that it is a significant problem. Canada is one of the least corrupt countries in the world, measured by independent organizations.

 

[afransen]

I always got the feeling that periodic bouts of cost cutting in the long term help governments by functioning as a sort of diet. Ideally governments would just do what they are tasked to do as efficiently as possible all the time and there would never be a need for such a diet. In reality though good times tend to just see spending rise with little thought for efficiencies. So, in absence of a self improving bureaucracy, even seemingly catastrophic periods can be beneficial for the public in the long term.

I forget the person's name, but a researcher at SFU actually looked at Mike Harris' impact on Ontario's welfare program in particular and found notable benefits of the CSR. I don't want to butcher his research from memory, but the general theme was that during Rae's government welfare had outgrown it's nominal goal of helping the poor through temporary job disturbances into a long term dependency program. The welfare trap. The CSR had the effect of improving the welfare system's performance by encouraging claimants to rejoin the workforce rather than remain on welfare.

A neat example off the top of my head would be the Canadian Forces. Probably the poster child of government services being grossly underfunded, I would go so far as to say this has had upsides for the organization itself. Clearly, the CF has avoided most of the boneheaded defense acquisition white elephants that plague well funded groups like the US or French armies. They don't even have the choice of buying the infamous 600$ toilet seats. Maybe this austerity is a little long term, but I would be comfortable in stating that the CF is in some ways more efficient because of it.

Harris didn't do much to reduce the welfare trap. He made welfare worse so that people could choose between:

-starving
-welfare fraud
-poverty wages

The welfare trap is probably most usefully measured by looking at marginal tax rates for those on welfare. Unless things have changed, some people faced marginal tax rates of 110%.