This is in direct violation of the NDP taxation policy, which is to tax people that work to hard.

Did I read correctly that she has four pets? That is a bit of a PR faux pas, in my opinion.

"We are thinking that if you are looking at a family budget, it could well be a thousand dollars a month.”

Come on, a thousand dollars a month, that would mean the average family makes $8333.00 per month or $100 000/year. Good photo op Carol but give us some credit for our math skills, the schools aren't in that bad of shape.

Good catch Travism. In order for a 7% tax to cost someone $1,000 a month, it would mean they are spending $14,286 per month on goods which the tax applies to. (7% of $14,286 is $1,000). Of course, since Carole says that it's an increase of $1,000, that means this family is spending $14,286 on items that are current taxed by GST but not PST, which is a relatively small amount of items. Even if we are extremely extremely generous, and say that such goods are 25% of this family's consumption, that means that Carole's example family makes $685,715 per year ($14,286 x 12 x 4).

Boy, I bet that family would really miss the $1,000 each month...

And there are people who want this twit running the province!!!!

Scary.

Do I understand that with the new tax system corporations would no longer be able to "claim back" their GST expenses? When they first introduced the GST they promised it would have no effect on the average citizen, that it was designed to tax businesses. However, short of a lot of extra bookkeeping, the ONLY persons it had effect on was the average Joe and we have picked up the GST tab ever since. This way, sounds like everybody pays, unless corporations will still be able to "claim it all back".

It's quite the opposite, whynotyou. HST is combining the GST and PST together, in a larger GST called the HST. Everything about the new tax will be the same as the current GST, including what it applies to, who collects it, and the forms you fill out.

Currently, businesses can claim their GST expenses (Input Tax Credits) but not PST ones. With HST, it's all claimable as tax credits.

The GST replaced the 12% manufacturers sales tax (a hidden tax) that was passed on to the consumer. My business was required to charge MST so in the end the GST reduced the "out the door" cost of what I sold by 5%.

FWIW, at the time I was so choked about the GST that I voted federal Lib for the only time in my life. In hindsight, the GST is a much better (if you can say that! :] ) tax than the one it replaced.

So when a family buys a house costing $250,000 and pays HST on it, how much does that cost them each month from their budget? Presumably they will borrow the money for the tax and pay interest on it, and will continue to pay HST on their regular monthly purchases. When you have done that, perhaps you maths wizards would be kind enough to tell us the results if the family income is $70,000 p.a.

Note also that the article reports that "James couldn’t pin point how much more the HST will cost the average B.C. consumer" and "It depends on when people are looking at buying a new house", interestingly, you all appeared to miss those parts of the article. Was that just political bias or can you guys really not read English?

I would also note we already have a great big Twit running this province, supported by Twits on this site who make insightful political analyses like that.

I must ask (nudge, nudge, wink, wink as he put it himself), does eatsbushesshoots andleaves do that because he can't get anything woody?

A - HST is only on new houses, is it not?
B - 7% on $250k is $17,500. Even with significant interest, the only way this is $1k a month is if you're paying your house off in 5 years or less.

So if it took 10 years it might be $500 a month, and fall within what she said, "saying only it could range from hundreds of dollars"?

From the BC gov site ....

"Under the GST, new housing is subject to tax while used housing is not. Neither is directly subject to PST, although there is currently embedded PST in the cost of new homes equivalent to an estimated 2% tax rate on average since most construction materials are subject to PST. Under the HST there would be no embedded tax in the cost of new homes. However, HST would be applied to new housing, effectively increasing the tax from 2% on average to 7%. That would create a disincentive to purchase a new home or build new housing for the rental market.

"B.C. is therefore proposing to provide a partial rebate for new housing equal to 5% of the purchase price up to a maximum rebate of $20,000. Since purchasers currently pay on average the equivalent of a 2% tax through embedded PST, there will not be a tax increase for new housing valued up to $400,000."

-------------------

Ontario will do somethng similar, although the threshold will be lower.

So, not too many people in PG will have to worry about that. You can also continue to buy, sell, buy, sell, buy, sell as often as you want to as long as you keep buying pre-owned houses. You buy a new one, you gets to pay the taxman.

Don't ask me what happens if you build your own. As long as you keep it below $400,000, nothing.

Now who has the English reading issues? :P

"We are thinking that if you are looking at a family budget, it could well be a thousand dollars a month"

Face it, there is no way that this going to cost anyone remotely "vulnerable" $1,000 per month. This PR visit of hers is misleading at best, and deceitful at worst, going to a senior's home and talking about HST costing $1,000 a month.

It's not even going to be close to that, for seniors or 95% of the general population.

Ammonra .... don't waste your time.... the figures she said are way out of line. Let us just accept the fact that after a couple of weeks of this, she still does not have a clue of at least the order of magnitude involved.

Annually, yes. Monthly, no. She just made a mistake. We all make mistakes. Hopefully someone will have ponted it out to her, and the next time she will give a more realistic figure.

Doesn't really matter if her figures are accurate or not really.
The point is,it WILL hurt even though the Campbell gang try to come across like it won't.
They are just plain lying and downplaying the issue.
Low income and seniors will feel it the most,but then,we all will.
We just don't know how much yet.
And let's not forget,the Liberals have spent a ton of money/tax dollars,and they are desparate for more!
I don't trust desparate people...
But she really should get her ducks in a row before running off at the mouth.
Makes her look a bit stupid.

Don't want the HST and will vote for any party that will phaze it out

Me too Imorge!
I voted Liberal last time like I always do...I am SOOOO ashamed!
I should have listened to the little voices in my head saying ...DON"T DO IT DUMMY!!
But then,I always have little voices in my head, and I usually just ignore them.

We're gonna get the HST like it or not, Liberals or NDP. Replacing the Liberals with a bunch of socialist idiots would only make the situation worse.

Try & get James et al to say they wouldn't implement the HST. It ain't gonna happen, they're just trying to make political hay

If they could only find a way to tax drunk driving and lies then BC would be laughing!

The whole quote is:

"James couldn’t pin point how much more the HST will cost the average B.C. consumer, saying only it could range from hundreds of dollars to thousands of dollars. “It depends on when people are looking at buying a new house, or going out for dinner, or heating their home. We are thinking that if you are looking at a family budget, it could well be a thousand dollars a month.""

She said she couldn't put a number on it because uit depended on too many variables. I have no difficulty reading, and understanding, English.

EBS&L has no idea what the NDP would do and quite frankly, I think the venom of the attacks on Carole James is an indication of the desperation of Liberal supporters as they watch the Campbell Government disintegrate from the lies and deceit of the last election.

130 or more countries in the world have a VAT tax (combined GST + PST) and Canada was one of the lucky ones whose combined taxes were not in the upper range of 18% to 20% because that is how much the VAT is in most of these countries for many decades already.

Google it.

I don't like my taxes going up anymore than anybody else, so I wish they would find an alternative and a way to get some money back to people who will really be hurt by this.

Ms. James is busy condemning and that is her job as the leader of the opposition.

However, she must know that there is a global recession going on and revenues of both the federal and provincial governments have taken the biggest hit since the 1970s. The Feds alone ran up a five BILLION dollar deficit in July, and August will look the same, if not worse. The predicted federal deficit is of the magnitude of sixty billion dollars, with each of the following years amounting to about the same.

The province has not been spared - it looks grim. But healthcare and education must be funded, as must other vital government services inspite of their costs increasing annually.

Now, as the official leader of the opposition she also must know that she has to state valid and workable alternatives to the HST, alternatives that are less painful and at the same time provide the funding that must be provided, the bad global, Canadian and local economy notwithstanding.

If she can not do this then I will conclude that it is just political posturing and that she doesn't have a clue otherwise.

Sorry.

"I must ask (nudge, nudge, wink, wink as he put it himself), does eatsbushesshoots andleaves do that because he can't get anything woody?"

Not as long as Caroles ugly yap is on the page!
You however, seem to get awfully excited at the mere mention of the NDP.

It looks like an editors error to me... it seems obvious it will cost the average person in the thousands of dollars a 'year' and not 'month' range. Trivial point though.

I agree Carol is just making political hay. She has no plan other than to protest... no negotiations going on, no leverage to stop this (a time when a provincial regional senate could pay for itself for sure)... Carol 'knew nothing' prior to HST going public? That alone means Carol should not be the leader of the official opposition. It opportunism and not leadership at this point. Opposing the HST is just the most opportune political thing to be doing right now.

The facts are that only a recall campaign can stop this at this point... maybe laid off union mill workers could put in some time for their democracy at this time?

Time Will Tell

oooo.... you snuck in another jab while I was posting. How exciting!
To respond, I don't give a rats ass about the "Campbell Government". I vote for the party with the best chance of keeping those thieving socialists from destroying my livlyhood. Again.

yeah she says we don't know then throws a ridiculous number at it to scare everyone...

The following quote contains the word "America". I think the word "Canada" would fit in this quote quite well.

"What happened to all that courage America was supposedly built upon? Can't even face yourselves anymore? When businesses fail, you close the doors, it happens all the time, what's the big deal all of a sudden? You’re broke, as a nation, as individuals, very broke, awfully terribly broke. Deal with it like real men do. Real men pay their debts and move on. They don't play Mr. Big off their children's piggy banks. It's a matter of honor. Quit lying to yourself, quit whining, get over it and get to work. I'd say, the sooner the better. You're in for troubled times no matter what, that much is cast in stone.

Might as well do it with your heads held up high."

http://theautomaticearth.blogspot.com/2009/08/august-16-2009-real-men-pay-their-debts.html

Posted by: travism on August 21 2009 5:09 PM
"yeah she says we don't know then throws a ridiculous number at it to scare everyone..."

Exactly. If you don't know, then don't make a terrible, badly exaggerated guess meant to fear-monger.

Ammonra: "I have no difficulty reading, and understanding, English."

How quaint, somewhat droll, in fact. OMG!

The comment you quote was in response to Wolfie, who said,"Now who has the English reading issues? :P" in reference to me. At least have the decency to keep it in context.

I notice that all you members of the anti-NDP brigade completely ignore the primary message of the article. That is the difficulty that retired people on a small fixed income will have paying the extra tax.

Ms Seibel says that she will probably have to go into a home because she can't afford to pay the extra tax. What a nice reward for building Canada. What a delight it must be to her to know that her government doesn't give a damn about her and she can rot in a home for all Campbell cares. Of course, since the beds for extended care are being cut back by the health regions, good luck to her in finding one, eh!

That was the message in the article, but all you can focus on is a distorted and carefully selected part of a sentence. No wonder Campbell thinks he can get away with anything if that's the level of criticism he gets!

And, the fact is that I do not get excited at mention of the NDP. I let most references go by without comment, but sometimes the BS is so rampant I have to oppose it.

I do note, however, that any reference to Carole James, and I do mean any, brings out the snide remarks from the same small minded people over and over and over again, as if put downs of Carole James or the NDP have any effect whatsoever.

Do we have to start another round of cutting people off the site for language and comments which have no bearing on the topic, but are taking a shot at another person's comments.

Clean up your act or we will set about to clean it up for you.

Meisner

In respect for Meisner and his comments I will hold my fire about the cheap shots regarding " laid off union mill workers"

Ammonra quoted a passage which I will take one sentence at a time.:

"James couldn’t pin point HOW MUCH MORE the HST will cost the AVERAGE B.C. consumer, saying only it could range from hundreds of dollars to thousands of dollars."

In this sentence she is properly looking at the increase over the existing amount which will have to be paid. The increase will be for services, not for tangible goods since they are already taxed provincially with a few exceptions such as children's clothes which will continure to get at point of purchase rebates.

She is also dealing with the AVERAGE BC resident. If I remember correctly, the average resident FAMILY INCOME in PG, prior to income tax, is just over $70,000 in 2006. That is higher than most other communities in BC. The after tax income might then be in the $55,000 to $60,000 range depending on the deductibles. That is the disposable income. On average, one quarter to one third of that might go to housing, which is not taxable, whether rent or mortgage payments. So, lets say that the family has a disposable income after housing of $45,000 or just under $2,000 per month.

She then continues:
“It depends on when people are looking at buying a new house, or going out for dinner, or heating their home. We are thinking that if you are looking at a family budget, it could well be a thousand dollars A MONTH."

So, for those who can read English and have a good memory to boot, the words were that she was talking about the AVERAGE.

And calling on reading ability and recall again, we can remember that she also said "dollars per month"

Applying that to the knowledge that any average family member who has ever put together a budget, or is responsible for spending the money, has about how much money can be spent on an average monthly we know that even if we were to assume that ALL of the items and services bought for the $2,000/month of disposable income after housing received a brand new 7% provincial tax, that tax would come to a grand total of $140.

Let us give her the benefit of the doubt and say that about 50% of that is an actual increase over previous taxable amount. That makes it about $70 per month.

Given that, the $1,000 is way out of the ballpark for an order of magnitude. The $100 is still too much but closer by an order of magnitude of 10 fold.

It may have been an honest slip up in that she should have said (and she may have but was reported wrongly) per year rather than per month.

I would take that and run. If not ... well, you can take a horse to water ..... but ...

But still not a word about the substance of the article, that people on fixed incomes may not be able to cope with the increases due to the HST. All the rationalisations in the world trying to negate what it means when someone says they could not do something do not alter that woman's problems, nor of other people like her.

Look, the BC Green Party has made a definite statement as to what its policy is on the HST: It supports it but only if it is brought in at 10%.

That is an alternative idea and it has its merits.

Now the whole province knows what the BC Green Party stands for.

I don't care who the leader is of the NDP, but (since I don't like the HST and the way it was dumped on us) I dearly would like to hear or read what the NDP alternative is - what is the carefully thought out and workable solution of the NDP?

I haven't seen any! It's fine that Ms. James visits some retired people, but she claimed that she was also going to talk to owners of businesses.

Did she do this, who did she meet with, where are the pictures?

Did she get any ideas from the business people she had (I presume) meetings with and what did they tell her?

Substance. Where is the beef?

James is the lost Chiwawa who follows you up the street and barks at your every move.. Its got to be pretty easy to be the leader of the NDP. Just find out what the other guys are doing and protest their decisions not a bad gig if you ask me! No thinking or planning involved just oppress and criticize the other party's decisions .. This is why the NDP lost the election ... No thinking or Planning!! I don't like the liberals either but they are damn good at putting their plans into action.

From what I hear so far - this HST is supposed to good for business, (particularly the forest industry mills) and help them "improve" their bottom line, become more profitable, create more jobs, -- blah, blah, blah, and this is all fine and dandy ---- BUT, what about the single mom on income assistance, the senior on a pension or fixed income, the people on minimum wage, the disabled, the ill, the -- well you get my drift here.

Are we to accept that "they" are the ones who'll be supporting these "mills" by paying extra taxes on their meagre incomes literally for the rest of their lives ??

Yeah, yeah, I know the "government" says they're gonna give some of those people who "qualify" a "rebate" cheque now and then, but you and I know that this is just the cheese they're baiting the same traps the FEDS caught us with when we got the GST shoved up our @@sses.

How stupid do they think we are ?? If they have to give this money "back" to those in the lower income groups, why are they taking it away from them in the first place?

Maybe that Green party 10% idea has some merit after all. We all know damn well that the claim of "reduced" prices at the front end of some goods, goes into the pockets at the speed of light of those same producers that are supposed to pass this on, as soon as they can figure out how to plug that hole.

You can bet your knickers on one thing -- if this wasn't good for the bottom line for the FEDS too, they sure as shootin' wouldn't be dangling that 1.6 billion dollar carrot in front of the BC libs to "just do it".

palomino

Before the election we were told the following: No deficit, then only a $500 million deficit, no HST. At the same time economists plainly stated that the Liberals numbers were way out of line. Most predicted a deficit of over $2 billion. Now the election is over and the Liberals state that their numbers were wrong because of falling revenues in the past few months, and they must bring in the HST.

It is obvious to any but the most hard line Liberal supposters that the HST has been in the works for months before the election, and that we were deliberately lied to during the election by the Liberals.

My point is that there may be some value to the HST, and that I really don't have any difficulties paying my fair share of taxes. But the time to debate this was before the election, not after. No one voted for this plan. In fact, we were told that there would be no HST if the Liberals got into power.

Its not just another broken election promise-this is a bold faced lie, and people saying "What would Carole James do instead?" merely avoids the central issue-this is not what the Liberals were elected to do. The people of BC gave them a mandate-they are not fulfilling it. That is the issue, not a mistake of numbers by Carole James. How anyone can defend the Liberal's actions is totally beyond me.

Carole James said, "it could well be a thousand dollars a month.” There are many circumstances when it will be $1,000 a month. For instance a new reno to reduce heat loss could cost $10,000. With no reduction from BCHydro since that program was just cancelled, the HST would be $1,400 for that month. Some of you could probably think of many other scenarios where the tax will be $1,000 or more a month.
Don't slag Carole James for pointing out how hard this broken promise is going to be on the middle and lower classes in BC.

For me the mistake of numbers by Carole James is not a big deal. I regularly see news reports on TV when they still don't get the difference between millions and billions and where the incorrect spelling of simple words is an almost daily occurrence.

Back to the election.

I remember a Liberal minister saying that a combined HST for BC is not on the immediate radar.

Other than that I don't remember anyone debating it or making a big deal of it.

Shouldn't the NDP and Carole James have dragged this item into the limelight during the election campaign?

I don't recall that ever happening and as the official opposition they definitely should have done that. The big item with the NDP was the carbon tax and after the election James conceded that if the carbon tax was modified a bit it may not be such a bad idea after all.

Now we are facing the HST. Federal and provincial revenues are in the tank. Obviously the HST would bring in more badly needed revenues for the province.

Rather than concentrate on how the Liberals did not tell the truth about their plans during the election campaign (that is in the past and it is common knowledge by now and irreversible) I personally would like to concentrate on the present and the immediate future and get a policy announcement from the NDP as to what their alternative is to the Liberal's HST.

The Greens can do it - why can't the NDP?

Diplomat,

So your answer is the Liberals are liars so what are the NDP going to do about it?

By the way, the Liberals stated that they were not going to bring in the HST-now you blame the NDP for not debating it during the election?

Thanks, you've proved my point-no one can actually defend the actions of the Liberals

I hope everyone has a great weekend

I'm not a fan of the NDP for obvious reasons, but they might actually gain some real support if they came up with some firm policies and alternatives rather than just criticizing all the time.

I see a lot of comments about fixed income, and that somehow other than poor retired people, the rest of us somehow are on variable incomes.

Now I am not sure about anyone else, but my boss is not going to give me a 5% raise when the HST starts, they also don't give me a raise when gas goes up, heating bills increase in the winter, or suddenly I get a utility bill from the city.

Everyone with a job is on a fixed income, with one point against them companies are starting to ask for wage cuts and other compensation from employees to stay in business. In rough economic times, you company can downsize, or close down causing your income to be cut in half with little or no warning.

Right now you should count yourself lucky that you are on a pension, where you don't have to worry about your income decreasing, which is a very real prospect for many people in Prince George.

I like most everyone else do not like the idea of my income being taken by the government in the form of taxes, when I looked at my budget, I see that I will be in the neighborhood of $40-50 per month.

Now it goes without saying if the government does not implement this tax, it will get money from somewhere else.

Unless we are willing to have the government to less for us expect to pay more taxes. If we expect the government in improve services, expect to pay more taxes. Every time a government until negotiates a raise expect to pay more taxes, when the government bails someone out, you guessed it more taxes.

Want shorter waiting lists for surgery, smaller class sizes, better roads, or a multitude of other improved services not surprisingly, that will require more taxes.

Ultimately the government would love to give us everything we want so we will vote for them, but they have to balance it with what they can afford, and how many taxes they think they can levy on us, before we rebel, and torch the parliament buildings, and hang them from trees as a warning for future leaders.

Yoshi: "By the way, the Liberals stated that they were not going to bring in the HST-now you blame the NDP for not debating it during the election?"

I am not blaming the NDP for the HST but why did it not make it a front & center issue during the last election campaign?

Asleep at the wheel?

How is that question an attempt to excuse the actions of the Liberals?

"Now it goes without saying if the government does not implement this tax, it will get money from somewhere else."

That is precisely what I want to find out. Where would the NDP get the money from?

Silence.

"I am not blaming the NDP for the HST but why did it not make it a front & center issue during the last election campaign?"

Because it wasn't an election issue. Only once did the issue come up when Campbell was asked about it by a business group-he said that there would be no HST. But you now say the NDP should have made this an issue? Hindsight is 20/20. There was no issue until Campbell said he would implement it after the election. You are saying the NDP was asleep at the wheel, while you should be madder than Hell that the Liberals lied to ensure it was a non-issue.

Where does the money come from? This is what the debate should have been before the election, but the Liberals lied to ensure that we would think they were sound money managers-clearly, they are not. We are about to have a budget that makes the NDP's "Fudge-It Budget" look like peanuts. Some economists indicate that this budget could reach almost $3 billion, and during the elction campaign Campbell and Hansen said that the deficit would not go over $500 million. That was clearly wrong then (during the campaign), and it was questioned by the NDP and many other groups. But Campbell refused to discuss it any further. And the media let the matter die.

My point is that you can say what you want about the NDP - why hasn't the opposition come up with a plan? But your anger is misplaced-you were tricked into supporting a party that said it has our financial house in good order-this is obviously not the case. The NDP, the Greens, and a host of others are not to blame for our financial difficulties-the blame for this falls soley on the shoulders of the Liberal Party.

Look to the past about what opposition parties promise-easier to recall MLA's, more accountability, more openness, any person under criminal investigation should resign, etc. These are all Liberal promises. Do you honestly believe they have kept any of them?

Hate the NDP all you wish. This is a democracy-feel free to do so. But to look at the economic mess we're in and say "The NDP have no plan" is to ignore an important fact-we're in this mess because the Liberals have put us here with their poorly thought out economic policies, and they got elected by lying about what they would do to fix the problems. How this becomes an opportunity to bash the NDP clearly makes no sense at all.

"My point is that you can say what you want about the NDP - why hasn't the opposition come up with a plan?"

That's the big question! Thank you.

Ammonra wrote:
"But still not a word about the substance of the article, that people on fixed incomes may not be able to cope with the increases due to the HST"

Actually I did make the observation right at the start that if this lady is supposed to represent someone on a fixed income, she does have 4 pets. The 4H club and others who know about such things estimate that each pet dog/cat, assuming her pets are not fish or budgies, cost about $1,000 per year to maintain.

Specific to low income groups, here is the wording on the government site:

•Will low income individuals be compensated for the increase in tax payable by consumers?
B.C. is proposing to provide a B.C. HST Credit that would be provided, on a refundable basis along with the quarterly GST Credit payments. The maximum amount of the credit would be $230 for individuals with income up to $20,000, and $230 per family member for families with incomes up to $25,000. The maximum credit would be phased-out by four per cent of income above the thresholds. The credit will benefit over 1.1 million British Columbians, and when combined with the existing low income Climate Action credit, a single individual earning $20,000 will be eligible for up to $333 in credits.

http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/scp/hst/Questions.html

The problem is alot deeper than the HST- the government is broke- less revenue somewhere in the 2.7 - 3 Billion ranage- Government must cut services and raise taxes - A consumption tax is the fairest. However neither the Liberals nor the NDP seem to be able to run a large cooperation (Government)- recent cuts by the Liberals are unfocused and off the cuff. The NDP or the other hand has no fiscal plan. Governments at all levels Federal, Provincal and local need sound fisical management- we are currently seeing little of this particular at the provincal and local levels. Some in Government feel if we pay more to senior staff we get the brighest and best- they seem have no lights on at this time.

The problem is alot deeper than the HST- the government is broke- less revenue somewhere in the 2.7 - 3 Billion ranage- Government must cut services and raise taxes - A consumption tax is the fairest. However neither the Liberals nor the NDP seem to be able to run a large cooperation (Government)- recent cuts by the Liberals are unfocused and off the cuff. The NDP or the other hand has no fiscal plan. Governments at all levels Federal, Provincal and local need sound fisical management- we are currently seeing little of this particular at the provincal and local levels. Some in Government feel if we pay more to senior staff we get the brighest and best- they seem have no lights on at this time.

Huge shortfalls in projected revenues both federally and provincially.

The money comes from us, so we are going to make up the difference one way or the other.

What would you rather call the tax ?
One way or the other, they are going to collect the money they need.
Scrap the HST and make gas $2.50 /L.

Which do you prefer ?

Some on here seem to think the problem will just disappear into fairy tale land if they sign a petition.

Maybe Scott paper will start printing rolls of fifties for paper towel.

Others on here call for the government to create jobs and commit to infrastructure projects in the face of a poor economy and high local unemployment, even build left turn lanes for every business along the highway.....hell, let's cloverleaf every intersection.

Don't forget to go to the doctor for every little thing that picks your ...

Why don't the feds pay for this ?
Why doesn't the government come up with a program for that ?

We also need to bail out the big businesses to save what jobs we can.

Don't forget to stamp your feet that some nasty ogre in government wants you to pay for all of this stuff that you want.

Dammit, that's what Mastercard told me too !!!!!!

$1000 a year to maintaian a cat! It costs $5 a bag for cat food, which lasts at least two weeks, probably a month. That's a very generous $5x2x4=$40 per month = $480 per year, and it could be half that.. Even if you double it for poop absorbent, that's less than $1000 for all four cats, and most cat owners let the cats poop outside, as many hobby gardners know.

It surely must be obvious that the reason the NDP did not raise the issue of the HST during the election was because they did not intend to introduce it. Subjects are only raised if they have some relevance to the electorate.

So, for those who want to know what the NDP would have done, that is the answer - nothing!

Remember, the calculations are from the 4H club who are into responsible animal care.

There are medical bills to pay each year. I understand that there are more animal surrenders these days because they cannot afford the medical bills any more. It's a lifetime, annual average. Cats are likely less than dogs. Cats that are let out of the house are more than the ones who stay inside. They are more likely to come home with a few open wounds or an eye out after a cat fight.

But, even at at $500/year/animal, she could take it down to one animal for companionship. As with most other things in life, more is not better. It is the quality that counts.

From the article: "It will also be added to her bills for everything from VETERINARY services for her four pets"

Remember ... we were talking about reading English and remembering what one read .... :-)

Ammonra: "It surely must be obvious that the reason the NDP did not raise the issue of the HST during the election was because they did not intend to introduce it. Subjects are only raised if they have some relevance to the electorate*."

Well, if the NDP knew about it and concluded that the HST "had no relevance to the electorate" what has changed the NDP's mind that it is NOW a most detrimental issue affecting the electorate?

The recent heat wave???

*Electorate: The group of people entitled to vote in an election, sometimes referred to as the constituency.

Well, the 4H clubs provide a valuable service, I used to get my lamb every year from one of their members. However, most cat (and dog) owners take their pet to the vet when it is sick. I kept cats as pets for 30 years and I never paid the amount said.

That was %500 for all four cats, by the way, not each.

$500 not %500, sorry.

Sorry, I haven't made myself clear. cat owners take their cats to the vet when it gets sick, not usually on a regular maintenance schedule. After intiial shots and fixing there is very little expense to keeping one. The only cat owners I ever knew who spent several hundred dollars a month on vet bills were breeders. For other people it is a matter of proving a bed, access, food and warmth. Only the food costs money.

"The only cat owners I ever knew who spent several hundred dollars a MONTH on vet bills "

Surely you mean YEAR .....

Can we call the interchange of YEAR and MONTH, the "JAMES SYNDROME" ? :-)

"Well, if the NDP knew about it and concluded that the HST "had no relevance to the electorate"

Who told you the NDP knew about it, because I certainly did not. I merely answered your question and pointed out thet they did not talk about it because it was not part of the NDP plan to implement it.

On the other hand we now know that the Liberals under Campbell DID intend to introduce it but still didn't talk about it. Now why is that? Why do you not blast them for that as strongly as you blast the NDP for not being able to read Gordon Campbell's innermost thoughts, and somehow magically know that the HST should be an issue?

Here are a few other things the NDP did not talk about because they were not intending to carry them out, should these also have been discussed during the election? Should the Liberals have discussed them?

Nuclear electricity generation,
Free condoms for married people,
Legalising polyandry, and
Introducing a Tobin tax.

I'm sure, if we put our heads together, that we could come up with alist of 1000 items the NDP didn't talk about because it was not in their platform to do it.

Still, in future we now know you expect us to make a decision as to who to vote for based on the most convincing arguments justifying not doing something that it is not a policy to introduce!

Has anyone read this from an e-mail that apparently went around from Hansen?
--------------------------
Question: Why was this decision so sudden and such a surprise?

Every year for the past eight years, we have looked at the question of HST as part of the pre-budget review of all tax matters. Each year, we have come to the conclusion that, on balance, it was not in the interest of British Columbia. There were a couple of reasons for that. First of all, only three Canadian provinces (Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland) had adopted the HST system. (Quebec had adopted its own parallel VAT system in the early 1990s).

Secondly, there was little flexibility permitted for the tax rate in the federal model. We would have had to join the system with a 13 per cent rate as opposed to the 12 per cent we propose today. Furthermore, no exemptions were permitted.

The Ontario announcement changed everything.

While we knew, as of March 26th that Ontario was adopting the HST, our ability to assess the impact of that only came after the election. As we re-engaged with B.C. Finance officials after the election, it became quickly evident that the HST world had changed significantly.

With Ontario signing onto HST as of July 1, 2010, we quickly had to make decisions to ensure that B.C. would not be left at a competitive disadvantage. As we started discussions with the federal government in late May, they told us that we had to decide by the middle of July if we were going to get on the same July 2010 timeline that Ontario was on.
-----------------
link to the full letter on this web site about 1/3 of the way down:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=4420205

No, I said month and I meant month. These breeders had 4 females continually pregnant, and all four required constsnt attention, followed by vet attention to the kittens. Needless to say, the kittens were expensive.

Shall we call it "The Gus Syndrome"? :-()

Pre-election, the NDP were too busy taking pot-shots at their favorite whipping boy, Gordon Campbell, to worry about any actual issues. It's the same thing many posters do on this site...

First you do not accept the 4H figure, then you put in your own ridiculously low figure, then you jump to ridiculously high figure because it is based on cat breeders.

Can you not just take the article and the supposed words of the woman as what we are talking about? She spoke about vet bills, not food. I would assume that vet bills are foremost in her mind, otherwise she would have included food.

As I said, we do not know whether she has dogs, cats or iguanas.

Just put something like cost of cats per year into google and you will get tons of sites such as this:

http://www.purrballs.com/ownership/ownershipcost.html

"..... don’t even think of owning a feline if you do not have at least $640 a year to spend on it. That is the absolute minimum amount of money you need just to maintain its health, food and litter costs. It does not include toys or any other perks. If you are spending less than that you are probably neglecting you cat in some way – not taking your cat in for regular vaccinations, not changing its litter enough or feeding it inferior food. "

MrPG ... are you trying to tell some of us that the cost of raising cats is not the main issue? ... LOL

Thanks, Gus! The ongoing discussions about an HST were well known in Ottawa circles as well as in B.C. - a political reality and not the innermost thoughts of just one person.

Ammonra: "Why do you not blast them for that as strongly as you blast the NDP for not being able to read Gordon Campbell's innermost thoughts, and somehow magically know that the HST should be an issue?"

If reporters were able to read "Gordon Campbell's innermost thoughts" and questioned him and minister Hansen about the HST the top policy honchos of the NDP should have been able to take notice of at least the interviews and draw conclusions from those!

I guess that inability caused the NDP to yet lose another election - three in a row.

Keep doing what you do so well!

I still think the main issue is that the Feds are getting off scott free from this. They are the ones who are holding out the carrot and one after another the provinces seem to be biting.

Why are the feds interested in doing that?????

Will Manitoba and its NDP government be the next?

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2009/08/18/manitoba-harmonized-tax.html

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/smart-money-is-on-manitoba-getting-hst-52871042.html

http://www.tbnewswatch.com/news/Default.aspx?cid=63222

The French route to people's stomach ...

http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,643420,00.html#ref=nlint

"Although France may have just officially emerged from the recession, an appreciating euro and a decline in tourism continue to take a toll on the country's beleaguered restaurant industry. But the French government's decision to slash the value-added tax, a levy similar to sales taxes in the US, from 19.6 percent to 5.5 percent in the country's restaurants as of July 1, is expected to give one of France's most important industries a much-needed boost.

"The move, approved by the European Union in March, follows a seven-year lobbying campaign by the French government. As part of the deal, restaurant trade groups AGREED TO CREATE 40,000 NEW JOBS OVER THE NEXT TWO YEARS, including 20,000 apprentice positions, and PLEDGED TO CUT PRICES OF MANY MENU ITEMS BY 11.8 PERCENT.

So why do we not get the BC government to make those deals? They HAVE to pass on the savings that the government thinks there will be. Not a matter of crossing one's fingers. It is a matter of making a deal.

If we want to make a deal such as that, then we now "talk" to Ottawa about it. What do we know about the deal with Ottawa? How will the provinces be able to deal with Ottawa to get it to adjust its GST/HST nationwide so that industries such as restaurants will not suffer, as has been shown in Canada and other parts of the world?

Where is that part of the negotiation? The part that deals with future adjustments and how they will be accomplished? It looks to me the provinces are willing to give too much future considerations away for a few scheckels now.

tax the poor give the rich breaks for working hard to earn there money

But what about the f&^*$#@! CATS ?!

Maybe she's a farmer, maybe she's raising them for food in case things get really tight. Maybe she's entitled to fed tax breaks for being a hobby farm.

Will you guys quit straying onto the topic and get back on obscure tangent ?

We want to know how much it costs ammonra to scoop the poop from his pregnant cats !

That's the issue.

----------------

"Pre-election, the NDP were too busy taking pot-shots at their favorite whipping boy, Gordon Campbell, to worry about any actual issues. It's the same thing many posters do on this site..."

MrPG, that is sheer genius, a perfect way to sum it up.
I couldn't have said it better myself.

Start a conversation about the ramifications of the HST, and within minutes, everybody is arguing about cat poo.

That is what happens when free for all fridays is not available for the other 6 days.

Besides, the article talks about 4 pets and vet bills that will be taxed.

So that's your excuse.

Okay, back to the story to fetch something else:

"For Seibel, the HST will add about $21 dollar a month to her heat and hydro bills"

I have no clue whether she heats by gas, oil, propane or electricity. But at $21/month on average additional tax, with the increase of 7%, she pays $3,600 for electricity and any other fuel she might use for heat.

Her electricity bill should not be more than about $60 to $70 per two month period unless she heats water with it or part or all of the house.

If we assume she does not heat her house with electricity, her heating fuel costs about $3,200 per year. She must live in a relatively large house, or an old house with poor insulation and an old furnace at 60% or so efficiency or turns the heat up into the 21C+ range. Or any combination thereof.

What is really breaking this person finacially is not so much the additional 7% tax which amounts to $252/year for this part of her living expenses, but the fact that she is stuck with one person trying to maintain a house which is meant for a family of 4 or so and the house has not been maintained to more modern standards and thus is eating up money on energy to the tune of over $600 above what an 85% efficient furnace would provide versus the 60% efficient furnace she likely has.

Which brings us into the topic of housing for seniors. How to assist them, as one tactic, in staying in their own house for as long as possible because that is likely what most seniors prefer and is what is typically the cheapest for the social safety net.

After next summer when we have the "much hated" HST foisted on us we shall go shopping for whatever ya need and pay a lot of extra tax on some items and...oh yes. Don't forget to give our governments an extra $10 or $20 bucks in voluntary tax by purchasing lottery tickets with a 14 to million to one chance of winning. Boycott lotterys, folks. The government makes a lot of dough with them. Taxation by stupidity. I stopped buying them, cold turkey. Then again, some people buy a thirty thousand dollar car then bitch about the price of broccoli. Go figure.

Of course the costs of raising cats is not the main issue. That arose because you (Gus) tried to criticise the woman for having pets, inferring she was spending too much money on them.

The main issue is that the woman will have increased costs from HST due to the Liberal Government lying during an election.

And to Diplomat, now not only is the NDP at fault for not talking about something they had no intention of implementing, tbut he press is at fault for not being able to magically read his mind. Did I understand your comment correctly?

When do the Liberals get held responsible for their own actions?

"We want to know how much it costs ammonra to scoop the poop from his pregnant cats !"

Actually I no longer have a cat. One ran away when we first moved down here and we couldn't find him. The other was so old she lost bowel control and we had to have her put down. You get attached to your petas.

Ammonra posts: "The main issue is that the woman will have increased costs from HST due to the Liberal Government lying during an election."

That, Ammonra, is your point of view. I suspect that there are several other points of view of what the main issues are.

I doubt very much that the woman and others will have increased costs because someone is lying. There will be increased costs because:

1. the feds are holding out a carrot at a time when most provinces have financial problems and the carrot is difficult to resist

2. BC is having financial problems

3. The government thinks that the problems will be mitigated with this move

4. the government needs to deal with the increasing costs of medical and social assistance for the elderly, such as this Lady.

Those are some of the real issues. The notion of "lying" is a political statement that does not go to solving the problem.

Some of my statements go to solving the problem. The realities are that people might have been off relatively well during their life as they were earning money and as they had a partner to share things with. Some salted away money and money is not so much their worry. Others who have a sudden change in income are not quite prepared to recognize that and keep on with their lifestyle.

If they want to vent their anger at others, and not look into the real problem, as so many on this web site tend to do, then we have a problem as a society.

Why? Because they will hit the wall eventually when she will run out of money because she has not spent it wisely. That is when the safety net we have in place has to kick in. The more we have in that situation, the higher the income tax, the HST, and whatever other taxes we have and can think of will have to be raised.

So, face the real problem. The sooner we do that as a society, the better off we will all be.

Sitting around a table with a sweet elderly lady for a photo op and not knowing what the real problem is will not do anyone any good.

This reminded me of my old dog "Gordon".
He is a very smart dog.
We call him "Buster" most of the time,because I think calling him "Gordon" is just plain cruel.
Like I said,he is a very smart dog, but he is getting old,like me.
My wife thinks he is senile,but he is just old and easily confused...also like me.
She calls him by his real name"Gordon" when she is mad at him, but she does the same thing to me all the time.
It means nothing.
Anyway,Buster really likes his bones every afternoon to chew on,even though they give him terrible gas, so I explained to him that this was the last bone for oh,maybe a week or more at least.
There would be no bones for the next rainy day either.
The bones had run out and he should make this one last.
There was no more...as I said.
(he seemed to understand all this...he really is a very smart dog!)
I also explained to him there might not be any more bones period,ever, depending on Gordon Campbell's next budget that Colin Hansen is going to dump on us soon,while wearing Gordon Campbell's shoes because he cannot afford a new pair.
Gordon Campbell will be waiting in the lounge at the Empress Hotel,hiding from the mob.
Buster said that is a dumb place to hide,because everyone knows he only drinks tea!
I tis the first place the guy with the rope will look!
(Buster looked very angry at this...he does not vote Liberal,never has..)
Well..lo and behold,Buster chewed on that bone for while,gazed longingly at the neighbours cat, and then he buried that last bone!
Deep.
Very deep.
Imagine that.
The next day,he dug it up and chewed on it a while more, and then he buried it again.
The day after that, he did the same thing, again.
He made that bone last for 4 days....
He knew there would be no more.
Maybe not ever.
Imagine that...Buster saved that bone.
I felt bad for him after a couple of days and I promised him the neighbours cat "Mulroney" to snack on,(he hates the neighbours cat)and he felt much better about running out of bones.
(did I mention Buster is also naive and easy to bullsh**t?)
I thought about what this wise old dog had done for quite a while, and suddenly I realized that Buster was actually smarter than Gordon Campbell and Colin Hansen combined!
He may even be smarter than Kevin Falcon and the rest of the entire Liberal party!
And even Rich Coleman!
Buster thinks we should chew on Gordon Campbell and Colin Hansen a while...hard.
Very hard.
They saved nothing,even when they knew times were tough and the "bones" were running out.
They went ahead and used up all the bones we gave them anyway, but they won't tell us where.
Buster thinks we should chew on them a while,then we should bury them in Whistler B.C. but of course,he did not say why.
He also said they may give us terrible gas and leave a bad taste in our mouths.
(did I mention Buster was not in favour of the Olympics and cannot afford to go anyway?)
Bury them deep, says Buster.
Very deep indeed.
Digging them up later is optional, but not until after 2010 when the bill comes due.
Buster is old,but he is not mean.

"Sitting around a table with a sweet elderly lady for a photo op and not knowing what the real problem is will not do anyone any good."

And that, of course, is your politicasl view and bears no relation to the reality.

If Campbell had not lied and had told the voters that he was going to introduce the HST, there is no doubt that some percentage of the voters would have changed how they voted, and Caarole James would now be Premier, and that women would not be facing an increased HST tax bill.

"Ah, but she would pay somehow", say the Liberal supporters.

"Not so", says the others, "because the NDP has always tried to reduce the burden on those with lower incomes."

Lying to the voters is not facing the real problem, now is it?

Do you wish to make lying the discussion now? And do you wish to make the discussion about which political party does not lie?

Then go ahead. I say the NDP lies. The Reform lied. The Conservatives lie. The PQ lie. Even the Greens lie. Do the BC Liberals lie? If they would not, they would not be a political party. It is a prerequisite.

Politics is all about stretching the truth or lying or telling only part of the information or whatever you want.

It still does not get at the problem we are facing.

As someone said, including me somehere on here, there is NO ONE, neither BCLiberal, nor NDP, nor Green who are identifying exactly

1. how the taxation system around the PST works now,
2. how it will work,
3. who is expected to pay more tax,
4. who will be compensated for that,
5. who will pay less tax,
6. what will be the expectation as a result of that,
7. what will happen to the money we will receive from the feds,
8. who will pay for that money,
9. how will those who will pay for that pay for it
10 ... etc. etc. etc.

You know, all those things that deal with integration, not isolation, and sustainability, not instability.

Lying is not the problem, in my view. The problem is not knowing what will happen in the case of
1. scenario A - no change to the PST
2. scenario 2 - move to the HST

When I say that, I do not want political BS from whatever side. I want an explanation from a non-patisan auditing firm with experience in this kind of analysis. We hear from all sorts of special interest groups that are for or against it.

I have not heard from an independent group who has spent more than the time it takes to write a media release on this.

Ammonra does not provide anythin more than opinion. Gus does not provide more than opinion. Not one single person on here provides more than opinion. None of it is founded on expert knowledge. Most is based on "street smarts" and prejudiced opinon based on the "hatred" of a leader and even a party. And those parties and leaders vary depending on who provides the opinion.

An objective discussion on this issue seems impossible to be had on here. It is politically charged.

Once more, look at the French situation with their approach to the restaurant industry. At least they are trying to make those who are getting a tax break accountable. We are far too "free-enterprise" oriented in North America to attempt something like that.

Remember, Sarkozy is a right wing president.

"Do you wish to make lying the discussion now? "

Did I say that I did? No. As I pointed out some time ago the main issue is the woman's predicament, havibng to pay tax increases she cannot aqfford. That is the issue, nothing else. Not whether she should get rid of a couple of her pets so she can give the money to the government, but that she has to pay more taxes which she can't afford.

And that situation arose because Liberal party did not specify its intentions for the tax during the election. That is just a fact, nothing more.

"And that situation arose because Liberal party did not specify its intentions for the tax during the election. That is just a fact, nothing more."

You sure have a strange way of establishing facts. There is absolutely nothing that you could say that would

1. provide any certainty to the CBLiberals losing the electtion if it did become an issue.

2. provide any certainty that had the NDP formed government that they would not have introduced the HST.

You have a problem distinguishing between fact and conjecture.
---------------------------
"As I pointed out some time ago the main issue is the woman's predicament, havibng to pay tax increases she cannot aqfford."

And I am reponding to that by making a simple suggestion of how she could cope.

Then again, she suggests that she is on a waiting list for a care home, “It will be cheaper for me to be in care than to live on my own.” She has come to the realization that she is living beyond her means even before the HST was on the horizon.

BTW, if she moves to a care home, she will likely have to give up 3 of the pets if they are dogs and/or cats; possibly even all.

Again, all that before the HST was on the horizon. All that was was a badly chosen photo op.

I some of you are so educated you would realise that the 1000.00 a month was probably a type-o and it was suppose to be a YEAR. Geesus...anything to slam someone.

"And I am reponding to that by making a simple suggestion of how she could cope."

True, but what does your suggestion actually mean?

That she should get rid of some of her pets, her companions (2 dogs and 2 cats according to the Citizen), and use the money she saves to pag the increased taxes. Getting rid of pets usually means having them put down, as I am sure the SPCA will tell you. Even if it doesn't mean that and she finds homes, she will lose companionship.

That suggestion you made is an appallingly heartless way of dealing with what is likely the most important issue in her life. Whay can't she be treated with respect and compassion.

Why introduce the most regressive tax that our systems of taxation have? If more money must be raised, why not raise it with a more progressive tax so that the disadvantaged are not kicked in the teeth yet again?

pag = pay

This woman (according to the story...you might want to take a breath and read it) was already horribly over-extended, running out of money MID-MONTH and living off of SAVINGS for the rest of the month.

The HST will make little or no difference in her financial situation, the smartest thing she could do is scale back her living expenses to a much more sustainable level.

If you are completely wiped out by a modest increase in taxation, you are already living precariously on the edge of financial collapse. Kind of like all the home buyers these days, and their ultra-low mortgage rates and ultra-high purchase prices.

Putting aside all the arguing about "fringe" topics, the moral of this story is that it was a very poorly chosen photo opportunity that was spun into something that it wasn't.

In other words, the NDP continues to take the "fringe" approach to issues, barely marking the surface, failing to do their homework and really get to the heart of the matter and deal with it on that level.
That is what makes them NOT A CONTENDER.

Sorry about your cats ammonra, just trying to make you "CATS" see the story for what it really is, and that is a quick, cheap and easy photo and a fairy tale story about how the HST is gonna throw all the elderly and marginal out into the streets.

At the end of the day, it is melodramatic grandstanding, nothing more. No substance.
Some might even call this story a lie.