• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

GST cut

paracowboy said:
I dunno. I have a certain amount of faith in a man that is an economist by trade, with a vested interest in the situation, to do the right thing when it comes to monetary matters.

As someone schooled in Economics myself, it is important to note that there are many different schools of economic thought.  Everything ranging from "free market & no government intervention" types to those who support price controls, regulations, and government intervention with a whole host of schools in between.  So just because he's an economist, it doesn't mean he's right since economics is nowhere near an exact science (despite it's best attempts) and there is by no means consensus on economic theory and it's application.

Generally speaking, there are two kinds of taxes that the average citizen pays (sales and personal).  So from a policy point of view, this is where the debate occurs and to me and it's all about trade-offs.  And it should be about which one will be more effective.  Economic growth can be achieved by cutting both taxes but it does it through different means.  Cutting the GST encourages consumption which grows an economy and cutting personal income taxes encouarages savings which increases investment and thus improves productivity which also grows an economy.

So it depends on your objective.  Most economists line up behind a personal income tax cut for my over-simplified statement above. 

But in the end, I agree that a tax cut is a tax cut and you take where you can get it. 
 
The GST is good politics more than good policy.  Where a difference of a few dollars on your direct deposit pay will get noticed once or twice (since payroll does vary over the year as CPP and EI maximums are reached), a reduction in GST is apparent every time you stop at a cash register - it's a much more visceral proof of tax cuts.

Keep in mind that the budget was not intended to be a masterpiece of marcoeconomics; rather, it is a public relations ploy intended to create a positive impression of the government of the day, since minority governments generally last 17 months or less.  (For the record, my bet is on less)
 
dapaterson said:
Keep in mind that the budget was not intended to be a masterpiece of marcoeconomics; rather, it is a public relations ploy intended to create a positive impression of the government of the day 

And that is a good thing. The Liberals have created a constant public relations ploy intended to create a positive impression of the government of the day  ever since I can remember, but more blatantly in the last 13 years. It's only fair the Conservatives do so also, but it seems that people like the idea of a government keeping their promises. Not many, but kept

 
>While cutting the GST by a whole 1%, the government decided to raise the tax on alcohol to compensate for the loss of income.  They've also raised the personal income tax for the lowest tax bracket to 15.5%.

The previous (Liberal) government promised to reduce the lowest federal personal income tax rate from 16% to 15%.  The new (Conservative) government reduced the lowest federal personal income tax rate from 16% to 15.5%.  The income tax rate was not raised; the Conservatives simply didn't follow through on a Liberal promise.  By a quirk of how things are done, CCRA starts to implement this sort of change as soon as the government of the day announces it and assumes the legislation will be passed.  The Liberals didn't get a chance to pass the legislation to enable their campaign promise, but income tax payers got the benefit of doubt for one year.  That is all that happened.  If the NDP had promised a 2% cut, no-one would be complaining that taxes were raised by 1.5% because the NDP did not form government.  The government has an election advantage by virtue of controlling the policy levers, but we shouldn't allow that to mischaracterize the nature of campaign promises.

The GST cut is small.  Soon enough another small cut of 1% in the rate (1/6th of the remaining GST) should be implemented.  If it's done five more times (5 is a small number, too) there won't be any GST at all.
 
yeah, and i saved a total of (roll the drums please.... ;D) 2 cents, but all is good boys, in the long run, think positive, this might be a good move, coming from the liberals ;D
 
begbie said:
Generally speaking, there are two kinds of taxes that the average citizen pays (sales and personal).  So from a policy point of view, this is where the debate occurs and to me and it's all about trade-offs.  And it should be about which one will be more effective.  Economic growth can be achieved by cutting both taxes but it does it through different means.  Cutting the GST encourages consumption which grows an economy and cutting personal income taxes encourages savings which increases investment and thus improves productivity which also grows an economy.

So it depends on your objective.  Most economists line up behind a personal income tax cut for my over-simplified statement above.

I think you've over-simplified to the point where we've missed the argument: both consumption and income taxes affect economic growth in similar ways (via spending and investment) but the GST (as a consumption tax) is more efficient (costs much less to administer and collect) and fairer (in the sense that the rich pay more and poor less) than income taxes.

The economic (monetarist/rightist/laissez-faire-ist) argument is that while pretty much all taxes are bad, consumption taxes are preferable to income taxes: that is, there is a more provable argument that a reduction in income taxes will have a more positive economic effect than a similar reduction in a consumption tax (which only makes sense: get rid of the less-efficient tax and you will get more bang for you tax-buck-collected).  However, as you alluded to, a reduction in a direct sales tax may create some additional psychological benefit vis-a-vis spending habits ...

Nonetheless, as you said, less taxes of any kind are a good thing.
 
I_am_John_Galt said:
I think you've over-simplified to the point where we've missed the argument: both consumption and income taxes affect economic growth in similar ways (via spending and investment) but the GST (as a consumption tax) is more efficient (costs much less to administer and collect) and fairer (in the sense that the rich pay more and poor less) than income taxes.

The economic (monetarist/rightist/laissez-faire-ist) argument is that while pretty much all taxes are bad, consumption taxes are preferable to income taxes: that is, there is a more provable argument that a reduction in income taxes will have a more positive economic effect than a similar reduction in a consumption tax (which only makes sense: get rid of the less-efficient tax and you will get more bang for you tax-buck-collected).  However, as you alluded to, a reduction in a direct sales tax may create some additional psychological benefit vis-a-vis spending habits ...

Nonetheless, as you said, less taxes of any kind are a good thing.

Based on everything I understand about macroeconomics, I agree that a cut in personal income taxes is the preferred route to go.  But the choice of an income tax cut also needs to consider the temporal aspects of a policy change.  Currently, it could be argued that the economy is firing on all cylinders right now despite a series of interest rate hikes.  Those interest rate hikes were designed to slow the economy down in order to manage inflationary risks.  However, it could also be argued that a cut in consumption taxes will encourage more consumption and possibly drive up inflation.  So here, it is possible that we have fiscal policy counteracting monetary policy goals.  This is another reason why I would have preferred an income tax cut (takes longer for the change to effect the economy and probably at a time when the business cycle is on a down swing).

In the end, I am encouraged that forum members are discussing this on the merits of this policy change and not simply based on their voting preferences.  I haven't seen this on too many sites (blogs) and I'm pleased to see it.
 
Sheerin said:
Well the government is doing a pretty good job on taxing the poor, raising their tax rate while at the same time lowering the GST.

Why exactly does the government feel the need to punish groups that are hoovering just above the poverty line and in the case of most students, well below the line.  I am by no means an advocating a free ride for anyone, i just would like it if the government didn't make it so difficult for people who are actually trying to make themselves better.  How exactly would harm society by reducing the financial load on university and college students? 

This is really ridiculous.  Everyone pays GST.  Any cuts to the GST will affect everyone in the country, not just the 'Rich'. 

As for the "Poor" being penalized.  That is BS too.  They still pay less taxes, sometimes none at all; or even get compensation, rebates, refunds, Credits, etc.  The higher the income one makes the more Taxes they will pay, progressively getting higher as their incomes increase.  Some of the 'Rich' are paying 50% or higher Taxes.  The 'Poor' are not getting Taxed at those rates.

With the cut of 1% on the GST, everyone benefits.  You save 1% GST on a $1.00 spent, just as someone saves 1% on $1,000,000.00 spent.  1 Cent compared to $10,000.00 is a big difference, but in the end it is still the same 1%, and someone had to work hard to earn that $1 million in the first place, as well as pay a lot more in Taxes to do so. 

This "The Poor are being penalized" is a load of crap.  They have every opportunity to work and earn more, pay more in Taxes, and receive more in the way of 1% GST savings in doing so, just like everyone else.  Get off that Socialist bandwagon and get a job.
 
George Wallace said:
This is really ridiculous.  Everyone pays GST.  Any cuts to the GST will affect everyone in the country, not just the 'Rich'. 

This "The Poor are being penalized" is a load of crap.  They have every opportunity to work and earn more, pay more in Taxes, and receive more in the way of 1% GST savings in doing so, just like everyone else.  Get off that Socialist bandwagon and get a job.

Very well put... +1
 
paffomaybe said:
Personally, I think that it's a stretch politically to make the general voting public aware of the nuances of surplus tax capacity, and convert that into votes, especially if you're an unpopular incumbent like the provincial Liberals.  Thus, I don't think Guinty McDalton will be raising the Ontario PST any time soon - which I think they should.  Things are falling apart in this province - power shortages, failing education, failing health, rising urban crime, etc. - and there doesn't look to be any relief on the horizon.  The biggest fear I have is that, the federal Conservatives being undoubtedly western-biased, and with their focus on Quebec for that electoral majority, Ontario will be screwed with an even bigger fiscal imbalance. 

The biggest problem isn't that they don't get enough revenue, its that spending is out of control. Spending is being sent to "sexy" portfolios like education, healthcare and nebulous things like "productivity", rather than the basic grunt work like Infrastructure. Even the "sexy" portfolios are poorly managed, the amount of money being spent on health care in Ontario is sufficient to run a third world nation, but the vast majority of the money is eaten by "administrative" costs, so the hapless taxpayer doesn't receive very much "health care" at all. Similarly for education, and many of the industrial planning initiatives like ethanol plants are simply corporate welfare (since it takes more energy to make ethanol than you ever get out of it, you can see this is really sending tax dollars up in flames).

The Provincial governments could cut very deeply and reduce taxes. This would inconveinience the people at the trough, but the resulting economic boom would more than absorb these people back into the productive economy. The same could be said at the Federal level as well.....
 
a_majoor said:
The biggest problem isn't that they don't get enough revenue, its that spending is out of control. Spending is being sent to "sexy" portfolios like education, healthcare and nebulous things like "productivity", rather than the basic grunt work like Infrastructure. Even the "sexy" portfolios are poorly managed, the amount of money being spent on health care in Ontario is sufficient to run a third world nation, but the vast majority of the money is eaten by "administrative" costs,

Where on earth do you come up with this crap?
 
Nemo888 said:
Where on earth do you come up with this crap?

Observation. Try looking out of the window every so often and you will be surprised at what you can see.
 
Nemo888 said:
Where on earth do you come up with this crap?

Another proud liberal supporter I think! ::) As others have pointed out, Canadians are grossly over-taxed due to successive governments waste of tax dollars without proper safeguards in place! (Think gun registry, adscam etc., etc.) To simply advocate throwing more money at a problem is typical NDP, Liberal crap!

Give your head a shake!
 
paffomaybe said:
the nuances of surplus tax capacity,

Please enlighten me!!!  What the what is this?!?!  The amount you can raise taxes before the population revolts?  :-\
 
a_majoor said:
The biggest problem isn't that they don't get enough revenue, its that spending is out of control. Spending is being sent to "sexy" portfolios like education, healthcare and nebulous things like "productivity", rather than the basic grunt work like Infrastructure. Even the "sexy" portfolios are poorly managed, the amount of money being spent on health care in Ontario is sufficient to run a third world nation, but the vast majority of the money is eaten by "administrative" costs, so the hapless taxpayer doesn't receive very much "health care" at all. Similarly for education, and many of the industrial planning initiatives like ethanol plants are simply corporate welfare (since it takes more energy to make ethanol than you ever get out of it, you can see this is really sending tax dollars up in flames).

No no, I agree with what you're saying - and a lot of is is certainly because of applying outdated ideology to running a modern province.  I recently became aware of how badly this province is run - especially in the health portfolio.  Anecdote:  A friend who runs a doctor's office says that after processing forms for patients, she's completely shocked that people with refugee status get *everything* paid for - far more benefits than an actual citizen, including optical (ie.  they get their fricken glasses paid for.)  After processing a number of these patients, she made the common-sense conclusion that a lot of these refugees are simply soaking the system for the benefits.  That's messed up - there are bona fide users of the system waiting for hours to deal with a bona fide health problem, and then there are these leeches who get the bells and whistles paid for.  (My Q:  how on earth can a federally-determined status (refugee) be hamstringing provincial spending (health?)  It may or may not be included in the confusing deal we call equalization, but no normal Canadian can ever possibly understand how that megaloth will ever work.  I guess that's why the federal conservatives are champing at the bit to just hack at it.)

The Provincial governments could cut very deeply and reduce taxes. This would inconveinience the people at the trough, but the resulting economic boom would more than absorb these people back into the productive economy. The same could be said at the Federal level as well.....

I dunno, I think that simply cutting taxes in a system so corrupt (the fat is so integrated with the meat) is a recipe for people to falling through the cracks and therefore political instability... Harris tried to do that, and ended up with a revolt on his hands.  I think the idea of cutting taxes and "making do with less" definitely works more on a federal level than a provincial level because most federal portfolios don't influence the day to day running of mainstream society - downloading has made running a province more complex, the energy portfolio alone is causing serious problems, especially with the cap on rates.  So while a GST cut might work, cutting the PST could directly result in stuff like brownouts, which would scare away investment and forestall any economic boom. 

[quote author=I_am_John_Galt]
Please enlighten me!!!  What the what is this?!?!  The amount you can raise taxes before the population revolts?  [/quote]

Shoot, now I'm coming off sounding like a hoity-toity know it all... sorry dude.  (Well, I spose if I actually want to become a PAFFO, that's not necessarily a bad thing...  :P)

Based on what I know, the federal government, as the grand tax collector of this great nation of ours, makes tax policy decisions in conjunction with political effect and areas of constitutional responsibility.  This federal government has made it simple:  we feds are responsible for this, so we'll tax for this.  We're taxing too much, so we're cutting those taxes.  What they're saying to the provinces is this:  you're responsible for all of this, so tax your population appropriately so they're taken care of.  So by cutting the GST, the feds are saying to Ontario:  if you have problems, raise the PST.  (And, if that causes political problems, well hay-ell, that's your problem, innit? ;)  )

It's just that based on stuff that I've observed over a period of time, it's not that simple for a province.  Ontario in particular has been so badly run that moves like cutting taxes or raising spending on a provincial level results in badness all around.  On one hand, there's definitely a political effect (the revolt.)  On the other hand, the province is in charge of far more day-to-day responsibility today than, say, 10 years ago.  The way I see it, since the NDP had the reins, ideology - both left and right - has virtually crippled the running of this province for years, and now we're left with a soft, pink, badly run mess where these decisions no longer have a logical effect.  Raising taxes will piss people off, but it doesn't necessarily fix the problems.  Cutting taxes should piss less people off, but because the province is so badly run, spending needs to be cut, and if you're not smart like Harris, you'll piss more people off.  The result is political instability, which ensures little to nothing gets done - we now have a province with high taxes, high spending in areas that should have less, cut spending in services in areas that should have more, subsidized stuff where there should be none (e.g. energy.)  And don't get me started on municipal funding and operation...

I'd love to get a provincial government with political will (that sure isn't Guinty McDalton's crowd), they could 1) raise the PST to cover the suck portfolios including energy and health 2) with that cash, announce that the health care premium will be done away with, which will bolster the govt politically, 2) with that cash, come up with an energy deregulation and production plan (like Eves should have) so that the treasury is no longer drained by this suck portfolio (not to mention showing the world that Ontario is no longer a soviet energy basket case) while ordinary people won't be facing triple the energy bill.  Then get to work cutting the fat out of the meat, especially in health care - and coming up with a productivity plan that actually *means* something (it's only nebulous if you pay lip service to the term, and spend money on that lip service.)  And come up with a taxing system that allows municipalities to tax, like they do in New York, for example.  Oh, and move towards privatizing health care so the leeches will wither at the trough.  Oh, and monorails for all!
 
Good Politics is the art of the possible....and that's what we are getting.

You are right, you can't change things overnight and expect to get reelected. Ain't gonna happen!!

First you get the categories straight....fed to fed, prov to prov, municipal to municipal, etc.

Second...adjust accordingly up or down for the area

Third live happily ever after.... ::)
 
So, did anyone else's take home pay drop after July 1st?  Mine did and it dropped more than what I've been saving with the GST cut.

Thanks for nothing 'Steve'.
 
Perhaps your Province upped its' Health Premiums?  Why don't you ask what may have increased at you Fin Office/OR?
 
It's with my civi job... I compared today's pay stub with the last one I received before July 1st and it's clear.  My income tax deductions have increased.

With all the noise of the GST cut there is still the matter of the oft-forgotten personal income tax hike that was meant to pay for the GST cut.  The gov't increased the lowest tax rate you pay from 15% to 15.5%.

I expect responsible employers like mine will take more tax off people's paycheques starting now so that their employees don't end up owing a couple of extra hundred bucks they weren't planning on owing at the end of the year. 

I'm sure others will notice this too.

 
Buy more Large Double Doubles.  They have dropped in price.  You can make up your savings at Tim's.  ;D
 
Back
Top