Move the IPG letters around to have the real reason HST is good for them.

"With the removal of the PST, businesses will be able to invest and grow, and sustain employment"

How will we be able to monitor whether this is happening and, if there is a change, why it is happening?
---------------------------------

"This was the experience in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland following implementation of the HST in 1997."

Here is the experience in Nova Soctia as still recorded on the Internet.

http://gov.ns.ca/cmns/msrv/viewRel.asp?relID=/cmns/msrv/nr-1996/nr96-04/96042304.htm

"One blended tax of 15% will replace the two existing taxes which, when combined, add up to an effective tax rate of 18.8%. The blended tax will be applied to a common base that puts producers of goods and services on an equal footing."

By contrast, we had a tax of 5% + 7% = 12% on items taxable by PST before, and we will have a blended tax of 12% after. There is no tax reduction in the 7% provincial portion. There is only a tax increase since there will be a higher HST paid on many items on which there is no PST at present.

Please point us to factual and meaningful changes in NS prices rather than dealing with unverifiable generalities.

This is a tax transfer from business to citizens, and the extra revenue is going to tax cuts to corporations who already pay less taxes in BC than students pay in tuition.

This is a tax that was not mentioned as a policy objective during an election campaign only 2-months before it was announced, and so has no legitimate democratic authority to be pursued. It makes a complete mockery of the democratic system stealing money from the voters pockets to give to the people who finance the elections. This alone exemplifies the corpocracy we now are governed by.

This new tax robs BC of its taxation sovereignty to decide what items and services we think should be taxed and at what rate they should be taxed.... it gives that responsibility to an unaccountible to this province federal government. This is treason against the sovereignty of this province pure and simple.

The secrecy around the development of this plan should raise 9-red flags for everyone concerned about a government by and for the people.

"France has a value added tax of 25% and Quebec has a 13% HST. Both of these jurisdictions host vibrant tourism and restaurant industries.”

Now there is a real bunch of BS!!! The restaurant industry in France is in big time trouble and I have posted about that here before. They have lost 10,000's of jobs. This is devastating to France due partly to the expectations the world has of the industry. As a result, taxes have been reduced to 5.5% from 19.6% BUT only because the government made an agreement with the industry that they MUST show a reduction in price AND that they must hire on some 40,000 people in the next two years including 20,000 training positions.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,643420,00.html

In other words, the industry is not vibrant AND, rather than relying on industry to do something in a free market place, the right wing government is forcing the industry to do something.

I wish people would do their homework!!!

You could hardly expect the boss of the IPG to come out with any other comment than support for the HST. The IPG is a business support group. As tax payers we spend millions supporting the IPG and yet receive no tangible benefit.
You can lump this group in with the Liberals. Fortunately in 4 years we can vote the Liberals out of office, unfortunately not quite so with the IPG.

I have supreme confidence in predicting that no matter which government we would vote in or vote out - the HST (like the GST) would stay.

Remember Chretien when he stated (before an election) that he would eradicate, wipe out, smite, utterly destroy and demolish the GST? Well, what happened?

Turns out that the GST has nine lives, or more.

I wonder if people will still recieve GST cheques after these two taxes are blended,and just how are they going to do that without any confusion?

I also don't belieave the government is going to stop at 12%, this only opens the door for yet another tax on top of 12%.

"McEwan says the move to the HST is long overdue “Initiatives Prince George commends the Federal and Provincial governments for taking this important – and long overdue – measure to enhance the overall productivity and competitiveness of (Northern) British Columbia’s resource-based export economy”."
------------------------------------------

"Competitive" with who? The "productivity" per man-hour worked is already greater than it's ever been anywhere in history, and they seek to enhance it further? What for? To add "more" to the still unsaleable glut of product clogging the markets of "the world"?

Did McEwan, and those preaching the same line he is stop their economic education completely when they learned "unit cost is a function of volume"?

And ignore what should be the obvious extension of that ~ only if ALL the "units" produced CAN ACTUALLY BE SOLD?

For it is the TOTAL "cost" of ALL the "units" that still has to be liquidated.

Making "more" means we have to SELL "more" to fully recover the costs that have gone into the making of it.

Even if the "price" can be reduced substantially through this "mass-production", can the greatly increased 'mass'actually ever be sold? Where? To whom? And FOR WHAT? And for HOW LONG?

Global trade is fundamentally a two-way street. When we "sell" something to some country abroad the only way we can really be paid for it is to "buy" some alternate PRODUCT from that country.

When we ship increasing amounts of our "resources", whether they're raw materials or manufactured to some extent here, we are sending real wealth out of our country. And the only way this makes any sense in regards to our profiting from it is if we receive some more desirable real wealth back in exchange for it.

International trade has great value in increasing our standard of living in that it allows us to DIVERSIFY OUR "CONSUMPTION".

To the extent that this 'trade' is just that ~ TRADE.

The exchange of our "relative surpluses" for the alternate "relative surpluses" of some other country.

But this is NOT the primary objective of Mr. McEwan, and the purveyors of the line he preaches. The "trade" they are so anxious for is not "goods" for other "goods", but "goods" for "money" ~ international 'credit'.

Essentially "useless" figures that allow the perpetuation of a financial myth. That we can actually be 'richer', somehow, by giving more than we're getting. And to think, they banned the "potlatch" for representing that same philosophy!

""Competitive" with who? The "productivity" per man-hour worked is already greater than it's ever been anywhere in history, and they seek to enhance it further? What for? To add "more" to the still unsaleable glut of product clogging the markets of "the world"? "

The thing you fail to realize is we can choose between 2 mills that are both unproductive and unprofitable or one mill that is productive and profitable and therefore SUSTAINABLE.

"Making "more" means we have to SELL "more" to fully recover the costs that have gone into the making of it. "

I think that everyone realizes that selling is a vital stage of manufacturing. I think you miss the point entirely.

"That we can actually be 'richer', somehow, by giving more than we're getting."

Uh richer nations such as the US get more than they give and poorer nations such as China do the reverse (see trade accout inbalance and the like). I could poke holes in your theories all day but I will quickly grow bored outlining basic economic realties for you.

Alternatively we can choose to live in a user pay world. Thus if you want to drive down the road, you pay. You flush the toilet you pay. You go to the hospital you pay. You walk down the road you pay.

We live in a glorified serfdom, get use to it. We will continue down this road until we have a breakdown of our current social fiber.

"We live in a glorified serfdom, get use to it. "

No thanks. You may be fine with bending over every time the government tells you to but I'm not.

Just to clarify something. I thought if you bought something for your business it was already PST exempt?

"The thing you fail to realize is we can choose between 2 mills that are both unproductive and unprofitable or one mill that is productive and profitable and therefore SUSTAINABLE."

Go ahead, move to one mill. Remember, however, we are only one of the many towns with a mill. Consilidate the say 3 or 4 mills that are within a 2 hour drive and only one of the 3 or 4 communities will keep a mill .... and so on and so on.

There is absolutely nothing in this wirld that says that bigger is better in all circumstances.

We can all move to Kelowna so that we can improve the utility of highways and get rid of the long asphalt road that connects all the commuities in between. We can fly mobile units with all terrain vehicles out to scour the earth and remove trees, water, wildlife and whatever we need. We can build 150 storey self contained buildings in the Fraser Valley.

Eventually that will not be efficient so we can consolidate urban north america and all its production facilities in Oregon.

Where will the "consolidation is better" movement stop.

In other words, you have not the faintest clue whether diversification is the best for progress or consolidation.

All I know is that the conventional wisdom is that if you wish to ensure survival of anything, whether man made or not, diversification is more likely to guarantee sustainability and advancement while consolidation will more likely guarantee the creation of dinosours that will die off.

"Uh richer nations such as the US get more than they give and poorer nations such as China do the reverse (see trade accout inbalance and the like)."

The economic reality that speak of and you would like to teach several of us about if you would not get bored is simply a slice in time.

Take a closer look at that slice and also take that slice in time a little bit further into the future as well as stretch it back in time.

----------------
The closer look - What has the US received? Goods from China. What have they given in return? A promise to pay? What can they pay with? Nothing. What happens when you get goods on a promise but then cannot pay? What happens in the international world? Have there been previous situations like that? What has happened?

Want to try England? Got more than they gave. From North America. From Africa. From India.

England, the rulers of the world with a few ankle biters such as Spain and France knawing at its legs every now and then.

Did England give back? Yes. It can be argued that she gave back some know how, a system of organizing that some did not have and might have been advantageous to them.

So what happened to England? People recognized they were being taken advantage of. People recognized they could not be trusted. They left to take care of themsleves. Some were successful, some not so successful, but there was little left for England and its rule of the world diminished.

The same happened to Egypt, to Greece, to Rome and some others we, in the western world, know less about.

All great empires that lasted for many hundreds and thousands of years, a record which the USA has a long way to go to equal.

Our lifetime is to short to observe the consequences of the path the USA has taken recently, although we may be on the cusp of a major reckoning. I hope not.

So `Born in BC` humour us and give us a bit more detail of your great economic know how so that we can all see the light.

McEwan likes the HST? Good. He can pay mine for me.

What a joke Tim was hand picked by Cambell and the Liberals our taxes pay to support Tim and his liberal supporters that don't provide any value for our tax dollars. He is lucky to have a job unlike lots of people in pg and north. We need people to stand up against the liberal not be their puppets.Yeah the price of products will go down like Campbell said no HST and he would not sell BC Rail a load of BS

Nothing for a business is PST exempt. You pay at home and you pay at work.

Am I wrong or does the consumer pay for everything in the end?

If the government taxes me more to enhance the competiveness of the companies, does this not lower my purchasing power and therefore cut my product consumption?

BC's main products are exported. Lower prices will be passed on to the out of country consumer and the tax burden onto the local BC taxpayer.

Are enhanced corporate profits going to be reinvested in BC or maybe for new mills in the southern USA or maybe more dividends to mostly out of country stockholders.

Someday soon the economists will wake up to the fact that there is more to economics than capitial. I doubt it!!

Land - Labour - Capital.

Although, it seems to me we have added Government - finance - mangement to the mix.

In classical economics the owner operator was the capital. Now we have mangement with a cut and the stockholder with a cut.

To say nothing of the fact that a lot of so called investment is actualy borrowed money and so the money lenders get a cut.
Again, government tax laws make borrowing a better deal over raising capital or reinvesting.

Too many pieces in the pie.

Frank

We the people had no say in this tax.

This is a tax imposed by the unelected Privy Council of Canada that is accountible only to the Monarchy. This is a royal decree kind of policy shoved down our throats making a mockery (on purpose) of our democratic rights to elected members of parliament who make these decisions through open debate on behalf of their constituents.

Only through Privy Council actions could this have been implimented outside of the legislature in the way it was concieved. This is how Canada has become to be governed, and it is in large part why Canada is no longer a true democracy. We have been usurped as a sovereign by the 'sovereign' and our opinion on the matter means little to those with the real power.

We may at some point need a revolution to remove the Monarchial interferance in our democracy if we are truely to have a democracy in the future in Canada. The Monarchy power today is not the royal family power it was of past years, but rather an off shoot of the banker financial empire that directs the corpocracy we have become.

stuff for a business is PST exempt if its for resale (ie: no double taxing an item)

I am also noticing that no-one is mentioning that Alberta still has zero sales tax period .... HST or otherwise (exeption of the 5% GST)

anyone remember Pat Bell stating that the BC HST is lower than Albertas (kinda tough to be lower than 0%).... I have known Pat Bell for a long time and have never heard such crap spewed outta his mouth as i have heard the last year or so

It is all about spin.

Pat Bell and others in support of the HST say that BC will have the lowest HST in Canada. They can say that since Alberta, PEI, Manitoba and Saskatchewan have no HST. Ontario and BC are the turncoats. Quebec, to no one's surprise has an HST tht is really not an HST and is not called an HST, but is a melded or "harmonized" tax.

However, while we are at it, did you know that Alberta's deficit is higher than BC's? In the 7 billion range.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/story_print.html?id=1923567&sponsor=

I've been informed by a former Alberta resident that higher "Property Tax" in Alberta makes up for their lack of a "Sales Tax".

BorninBC:-
"The thing you fail to realize is we can choose between 2 mills that are both unproductive and unprofitable or one mill that is productive and profitable and therefore SUSTAINABLE."
-----------------------------------------
Can you not see where that kind of thinking is leading, BorninBC? There is NO evidence that "bigger is better" when it comes to overall 'productivity', 'profitability', or SUSTAINABILITY. And I could quote from numerous well-documented corporate histories to prove my point in regards to the forest industry. The 'productivity' per man hour worked in the larger plant is often eaten up by the cost of the bureaucracy it takes to administer that larger plant. The 'profitability', in many cases, most, I would unhesitatingly say, AS A PERCENTAGE OF OVERALL SALES is generally LOWER, not higher. And as the Firm continues to expand this becomes even more the case. And as for 'sustainability', well, if you think using up all your resources to try to correct a macro-economic defect in the 'price' system is in any way 'sustainable', you have a lot to learn.

Let me ask you this, "How do you feel about 'marketing boards'?" They're somewhat out of fashion at the moment, and I think that's as it should be. But that will be the likely extension of the "bigger is better" philosophy when it fails, as it will fail, to 'deliver the goods'.

Not that 'marketing boards' will do that any better to the overall advantage of the general public, but in our failure to solve the problem of "distribution" of a physical 'plenty' we'll undoubtedly, in my humble opinion anyways, go back to concentrating on trying to induce an artificial "scarcity". "To get the price up", so to speak, even though the "price" couldn't be paid fully when it was 'down'.
-------------------------------------------

BorninBC:- (quoting Socredible) "Making "more" means we have to SELL "more" to fully recover the costs that have gone into the making of it. "

BorninBC replies;- I think that everyone realizes that selling is a vital stage of manufacturing. I think you miss the point entirely.
------------------------------------------

The fact is, BorninBC, that if your 'supermill' is turning out 1,000,000 BF of lumber a day, as I'm told the one Canfor owns at Houston is capable of doing, and you're only selling 800,000 BF of that a day, in 5 day's time you've got a million board feet sitting in the yard against which you haven't collected a dime on your 'costs of production', no matter what they are.

Now those 'costs of production' can't be lowered in your 'supermill' to the extent that they might be able to be in a smaller plant.

The "capital costs", the substantial amount of money spent already to build the thing, involve payments that are TIME based. They go on whether the plant operates wide open, or at a lesser capacity, if it can, or not at all.

Likewise the "fixed costs", for things like taxes, water, insurance, and other items like hydro, phone, etc., which are partially based on TIME as well, all continue on.

Can you lower your "labour costs" in such a mill? Or does it take as many people on shift to cut the 800,000 BF you're still selling, (likely at a loss), as it does to produce the rated capacity?

Can you easily alter your product mix in such a mill? Or is it geared primarily towards making huge volumes of a very narrow range of items for essentially ONE market?

Now in one of your previous posts you touched on the issue of "externalising" costs. How many 'real' costs are being "externalised" in such a "supermill"? I leave you to ponder that one for awhile.
----------------------------------------

BorninBC (quoting Socredible);- "That we can actually be 'richer', somehow, by giving more than we're getting."

BorninBC:- Uh richer nations such as the US get more than they give and poorer nations such as China do the reverse (see trade accout inbalance and the like). I could poke holes in your theories all day but I will quickly grow bored outlining basic economic realties for you.
-----------------------------------------
That the US gets 'more' in material wealth, through its trade imbalance with China is perfectly true. (If you can call 'wealth' most of the junk the Chinese send them, and us, because we can't AFFORD to buy the good stuff they are just as capable of making as we are. Mainly because we've unemployed everyone here by sending the manufacturing jobs, and their incomes, to China, and under-pay most of the replacement 'service' economy jobs so all that they can afford is 'junk'. And a lot have to still go into hock to even have that!

But such a 'trading' arrangement is complicated by a number of other factors. The Chinese have needed American dollars to buy oil. Those with oil being generally unwilling to part with it for payment in Chinese currency, or goods. They want American dollars because of the unimpeded (relatively speaking) ability to use those dollars to buy goods, services , and SECURITIES, in the United States' market. Securities being everything that represents a claim on wealth that is legally 'secure' ~ enforeceable at law, in a country which places (still) the rights of the 'individual' superior to that of the 'State' in its legal system, and provides the means for the individual to exercise those rights (generally, still. Though for how much longer remains to be seen.)

To make what's becoming a too long story short, the present quest for 'globalisation' as its being practiced 'financially' does no more than progressively impoverish workers in the importing country, while it simultaneously enslaves those of the exporting one.

Having idle production capacity is a strategic asset for a company like Canfor or West Fraser... thats why they do shift reductions and don't moth ball mills while keeping other mills running at full production.

Excess capacity is a strategic move because it tells their competitors that if they enter the market we have the capacity to sink them with a wall of production that would undercut current market equalibriums. This threat keeps new entrants at bay and stablizes the price for the commidity at the level set by the majors like Canfor and West Fraser. This is an irritant for the Americans that they can not legally address straight forward and up front so they take the circutious route and find other complaints to fight back... they know they can't compete 2x4 to 2x4 in an all out market oriented battle... the Americans will stay quiet as long as they see excess capacity not being fully utilized IMO.

Its why the BC forest industry has become a monoplistic industy. I don't neccissarily agree with it, but at times it does have certain advantages.

The last paragraph however by socredible is right on the mark.