Excellent article on The Province web site yesterday entitled "HST not the lone B.C. Liberal time bomb set to explode". I suggest everyone skim through this article.

The following is taken from this article:

RECALL: If Vander Zalm's petition drive fails, he can always start up recall campaigns against vulnerable Liberal MLAs. Recall efforts can legally begin Nov. 15.
The following is the link to the article:

http://www.theprovince.com/health/lone+Liberal+time+bomb+explode/2776505/story.html

PS - Metalman. The instructions for putting a link in your post are given at the bottom of the box that you type your post in. (Right below the "Post Comment" link.)

"RECALL: If Vander Zalm's petition drive fails, he can always start up recall campaigns against vulnerable Liberal MLAs."

I'd be very surprised if he did. What would his motivation be at that point?

Let's see.

Global recession causes commodity/resource prices to fall drastically.

This leads to less government revenue - through not fault of their own.

Citizens protest cuts to schools, arts, services, etc......

Citizens protest taxes.

It is easy to criticize, but does anyone have a better solution.

The HST will be good for BC and will not impact any consumer's choice whether to go have a burger and fries or not.

This whole protest thing is not about what is good, it stinks of politics!!!!!

The Global recession was caused by Big Government, and Big Banks playing fast and loose with taxpayers dollars.

Only a fool or a knave would suggest that the banks and mortage companies, and the American and Canadian Governments, and the Lumber industry didnt know that at the end of the day there would be serious consequences for lowering interest rates for mortgages, and allowing people to buy houses without any down payment, and only interest payments for the first few years.

This was a recipe for disaster, and every bloody Politician and Wall Street money lender knew what was coming. And come it did, crashing down around our heads.

Huge profits were made from 2004 to 2008
on a housing market that was designed to fail, and fail it did.

We now have a bunch of arm chair economists such as LoveTheNorth implying that the HST is not part of the bail out of these companies who made huge profits a few years ago.

Im a little tired of people suggesting this tax is minimal. For some people it could be as high as $2500.00 per year. Thats a pretty pricey burger.

If the HST stinks of Politics it because it was dreamed up by politicians, behind closed doors, and sprung on taxpayers after the last election. That in itself gives you some indication of the intestinal fortitude of those politicians involved.

A Superintendent of Police a number of years ago, on a speaking engagement asked the audience how you got 20 Canadians out of a swimming pool. When he got no answer he said **you tell them to get the hell out** it works every time.

So the question here when it comes to the HST is this. Are you standing in the swimming pool waiting for someone to tell you what to do, or are you going to get off your butt, and put this bloody tax and spend Government on notice.

In the old days, people who sat on there asses and did nothing were called Arm Chair Quarter Backs, and Sidewalk Superintendents.

I think to-day for a lot of people we can call them **Keyboard Experts**

Excellent post, Palopu!

And here I thought for sure the HST was dreamt up by taxi drivers as they were sitting around waiting for fares.

There is no doubt the equilibrium is going to shift with an increased user tax. There is an article on the front page of the Vancouver Sun today about the equilibrium of trip frequency changing between 2004 and 2008 to 5.9 million trips per day in 2008, down by 1 million from 2004. That is a substantial change in habit.

Whether the same will happen with the coming of the HST, we will see. 7% more for restaurant/fast food? Eat 7% less out and switch to eating at home. Use 7% less electricity and heating gas. Wear a second layer of clothes. Some things like that can be done. Others, such as MSP payments are fixed and cannot be altered. So, if the money is finite and one does not want to borrow or cannot, then other lifestyle changes will have to happen.

Good points Palopou. For me, the fact that they had more than ample opportunity to bring out the HST platform prior to the last election, but chose not to makes my blood boil. They actually denied their intent and after a majority win, it becomes "the single most important thing we can do for our economy". It may well be. But after the carbon tax stunt done in the same fashion?? Enough you clowns. This form of governing, right or left, must end.

Where can a voter go to sign? Having a centralized area to go to would guarantee the 10% is reached. How about the costco parking lot for a weekend?

Palopu.

The people who "partied" with the cheap credit and bought the big houses, the toys, the gadgets, the expensive vacations, etc, (and unbelievably for a fairly large part of the population, this "party" is still going on), also have to accept responsibility for our present global financial crisis.

The "average taxpayer" took their eye off the ball while feasting on all of the cheap money. We are about to relearn the same lesson which our parents (grandparents) learned during the 1930's depression, which is, there is no such thing as a free lunch, and too much debt is a bad thing.

The good thing though is, in a depression a lot of people get very angry, and when people do get very angry we can expect to see a lot of common sense changes made to our present system that has a lot of excesses and imbalances in it. In short, people will start to have a respect for money again, and living within your means will be in vogue again, just like it was after the last great depression.

I just wish the Governments in Canada would quit trying to "fix" a problem which was caused by too much debt, by going even further into debt. This is sheer madness. The debt problem is much too big to fix. It is time for Governments to acknowledge the fact we have not been smart with money, and that it is time to "take our medicine". Piling on more debt just means the inevitable "day of reckoning" which is coming as result of us living beyond our means for far too long, is only going to result in even more pain, when it does get here.

The following cartoon does a good job (generally speaking) of capturing the actions of the average taxpayer for the last several decades. Sorry it is a fairly small picture, but I could not find a larger version of the cartoon.

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-DG855_oj_gre_E_20090310191551.jpg

That "extra $2500 per year" figure keeps getting thrown out there by the fear mongers. Can someone (cough cough Palupo) please show me a breakdown of that? Ive worked the math forwards and sideways and I cannot for the life of me figure out how the HST will add that much to my tax base. Thanks.

Interceptor I believe that is for a family of four with a single income earner.

Basically it is a tax on everything you spend money on for consumption from your net income. I think if you earn a average BC income.... If your net income (after income tax) spent on consumption is $21,000 per year than you will be paying $2500 in HST per year. Rather simple math and not very hard to figure out. If a family of four spends $400 a week on consumption (ie home heat, fuel for the car, cloths, school, hair cuts, eating out, entertainment, safety supplies, transportation ect ect)....

I can't support this tax because the process is designed to kill democracy. The way it was hatched behind closed doors, denied before the election, and then immediately rolled out after the election... this HST bill is about saying your vote is a formality, but really your vote means nothing and the political parties will do as they please.

This is a regressive tax on the middle and low income earners designed to finance tax cuts for foreign multinationals who will pas on their subsidy to foreign consumers and foreign shareholders at the expense of BC's middle and low income earners.

This tax does indeed transfer taxes from businesses to consumers, this is because materials that are not being resold, like paper, pens, tools, photocopiers, equipment etc, companies pay PST on, but have no avenue to claim it back, but however under the HST they can. Of course you can probably figure out all on your own, that any cost (including tax) paid by companies, ends up being charged to consumers anyways.

There is also estimated to be a couple of billion dollars a year, companies will save by only needing to track and deal with one tax rather than two taxes, which will probably see a few accountants and bookkeepers join the working folk on job hunt.

Now we could hope that companies will pass on these saving, but you know I bet you we are not going to see prices drop, and they just will pocket most if not all of the savings.

Consumers (this is where you and I come in), will now pay HST on pretty much everything.

On items that you currently pay PST & GST on like say a new table, TV, broom, drill, blender, internet access, etc, you will pay the 12% HST, but you will not pay the 7% PST or 5% GST (7+5=12) so they will cost you the same amount.

On items you currently pay only GST on like eating out, taxi’s, haircuts, movies, maid service, your Timmy’s coffee etc, you will pay the 12% HST, but no longer pay the 5% GST, so they will cost you 7% more. ($2,500.00 divided by 7% would be $35,714.28 per year you would have to pay on these services to pay that magical $2500 number being tossed around).

Gas (or diesel) for vehicles, books, children sized clothing, will not be subject to the HST.

New houses will be subject to HST. Houses under $ 525,000.00 will still have it, but you get a rebate so that you pay no more than you do now. New houses over $ 525,000.00 get a flat rebate on the first $525,000.00 but paid the full 7% extra on amount over. Not such a big deal here in PG, but in the lower mainland where most new houses are over that threshold, it is a big deal.

Paraphrasing Dr Seuss, I have puzzled and puzzed on this for some time.

In theory, on paper at least, this tax should not impact us that much. As business gets the tax break they "should" lower their prices, so in the end all is the same that comes from our wallets. The sad thing is as consumers, we all know that is not going to happen, at least not right away. Business will be hoarding that extra profit margin for as long as they possibly can.

Also, I feel the way it was brought about was sleazy. The Liberals use the tried and tested maneuver of screaming their platform at election time then using a small loophole to wiggle out of their restraints. Examples:

BC Rail - Campbell proclaimed "BC Rail is not for sale!" After winning the election the Liberals didn't sell BC Rail... they leased it for 60-990 years, depending on how many options CN picks up. Technically it was not sold.

HST - Liberals say during the last election there will be no NEW taxes. After winning they proclaim the plan for the HST. Here comes the wiggle.... it's not a new tax, just a tax shift from business to consumer.

As a life long BC resident I'm really getting weary of being slimed by the Gov't. For once I'd like a Gov't that has the (insert male body part here) to actually run things without being devious. But as we all know, honesty in Gov't is an oxymoron.

palopu: "In the old days, people who sat on there asses and did nothing were called Arm Chair Quarter Backs, and Sidewalk Superintendents."

Agreed! This site is full of those types of people. I still haven't heard what the alternative should be if we don't have the HST?

Vdesign,

your correct, the fear mongers spout the $2500 figure, but it is one of the most dishonest figures I have ever seen. Those out there who feel they are doing a justice and blindly spout decieving figures are as bad as the evils they claim to be correcting.

In simple figures, if you spend $20,000 per year on consumption, that will net $2400 in HST, but how much did you previously pay? PST and GST? That amount has to be taken off the $2400.00

All depends on where your consumption spending went, but no matter what, that figure is a red herring.

Palopu

"Im a little tired of people suggesting this tax is minimal. For some people it could be as high as $2500.00 per year. Thats a pretty pricey burger."

Nice job on the fear mongering, now how about some realistic numbers?

You spent countless hours blaming eveything on everybody else, calling down the government for dishonest tactics, then the 1st change you get you do the same thing?

Birds of a feather .................

The HST may or may not be good policy-this is not the point. The real point is that the voters of BC were deceived about the implementation of the HST. In no uncertain terms, we were told that the HST was not coming. After the election, we were told that once Ontario signed on, BC had no choice but to sign on. Ontario signed on in January 2009-we were bluntly told that the government was not going to bring in the HST in February 2009. And they completely refuse to release the domuments that would have proved they were being honest about when they considered the HST.

This policy is a massive tax shift from business onto the backs of individual consumers. We deserve the right to determine if that shift should go through. I for I am sick to death of Hansen saying that he has the courage to pass the right policies, not the popular ones. If this was true, this would have been an election issue.

As for playing with numbers (fear-mongering comments) I need to be crystal clear. When the HST was implemented inthe Maritimes, prices did not go down. So consumers were forced to pay higher prices for everything. We will definitely be doing the same thing here.

Flash,


Sounds to me like your fighting the wrong fight. By your explanation your problem is with the Government and how they input the tax.

I think the time being spend on the Billy V protest would be better used on a recall.

You are right on your last point, I highly doubt that you will see any business reduce prices because of the HST, you may see price reduction because of competition, but not from the tax.

The place where the general public may hope to see a little relief from it would be in potential job creation. IF select business can become more competitive, they theoreticly should see growth, with growth comes job creation.

Fear mongering is not about potential reduced prices. The fear mongering is about using numbers like $2500 when in fact anybody with a stitch of common sense and the ability to use grade 5 math knows that is wrong.

By my estimates, in order to pay an extra $2500 caused by the HST your consumption spending would have to be much closer to $50,000 per year rather than $20,000.

I agree that $2500 per family for a consumption tax seems really high because there will only be certain things that will be added on to the tax rolls. This is a consumption tax, such as is put on for alcohol,cigarettes, concert tickets, etc. If you do not consume as much, you will not pay as much.

However, The simple fact is that most corporations have been calling on the government for years to reduce taxation on industry and redistribute it more fairly between consumers and industry. Hence all the tax battles in various towns where the mills were threatening not to pay their taxes unless their rates were changed.

There will be little to no job creation on this especially in the Interior, because, as everyone in the forest industry knows, the added money is spent on modernization which actually reduces jobs. Compare the amount of people that worked in the mill or in the bush thirty years ago to today. One person now does the job of ten in the bush with a feller buncher as compared to chainsaws. Consider Rio Tinto, who is going to modernize their smelter, and reduce their staff from 1800 to 1000.

So, although the claims of how much this is going to cost us are a little high, the HST is just a way, in my opinion, to transfer the tax burden from industry to consumer. It will also be the first of many new consumption taxes that will be added so that the government can correctly say that they didnt raise your taxes, its your habits that raised your taxes.

Right on Stompin Tom. Never let silly things like math and the facts get in the way of a good rant.

I posted my comments to raise the issue in the hopes that someone would provide a sensible solution.

As usual, just a bunch a bitching about what has gone on, but no forward looking folks.

To LoveTheNorth

Business can continue to pay its own taxes, and citizens should not have to pay twice (once with the HST, and twice when the businesses continue to charge what they used to when they had to pay their fair share of taxes).

That's the solution. To blame the HST on the recession is making an inappropriate claim-i.e. that the reason we need the HST is because of a loss of tax money for government. The reason we are getting the HST is because of politics-the Liberals are trying to make the deficit look better than it actually is (gift of $1.6 billion fromthe feds for bringing it in). The ironic thing is that this will actually bring in LESS money in taxes than the PST.

If the HST is good policy, let it be an election item, as it would have been had we not been lied to by the government last year.

You can't get a "sensible solution", LoveTheNorth, until you have accounting in which the figures actually REFLECT REALITY. And in the accounting that Governments use, both Provincially and Federally, the figures continually distort that reality.

Many people are wont to compare the funding of a Government to that of a private business. Fine. Government is akin to a 'business' in the sense that it now provides us with a myriad of services, and also some goods. But lets make the comparison using the same kind of accounting in both instances. Substituting only where necessary 'taxes' for 'prices'.

Where, for instance, is the BC Government's "Balance Sheet"? What does it have that compares to a "Profit and Loss Account"? Does it actually have a Cash Flow Statement, or does it only use its "Budget"? Why is it we only see the "Liabilities" (Provincial Debt) grow, and never any statement showing how many of those Liabilities have a contra entry as ASSETS? In private business, the double-entry accrual method of accounting EVERY Firm uses records 'profit' in its final, meaningful form as the operational increase in ASSETS OVER LIABILITIES in the chosen fiscal period. How do we know whether, or by how much the Government's Assets have grown in its annual fiscal period? Obviously they must have grown more than the Liabilities, or we would be going "physically" backwards. And even under Gordon Campbell, I don't believe we're doing that.

Now we're often told that the first pre-requisite of "sound finance" is that the Government's Budget always be "balanced".
And many people think this means that the Government is recovering from the public in taxation exactly what it has spent in one and the same fiscal period.

Including all its 'Capital spending'. For things like roads, schools , hospitals, etc. ~ public works of all kinds. Things, which, in many cases, will last for years, and years before they need to be replaced.

Now in a private business such spending would be "expensed" over the expected life of the Asset acquired or constructed. And each year, the appropriate fraction of its original cost would be allocated into the price of the Firm's products as a charge for "depreciation", and collected from the public which buys its products. It doesn't fully recover the cost of the Asset in the year it was acquired, in other words.

But that isn't the proposition in store for us with the conception many hold of the virtue of a government's "balanced Budget". Is it? Here, they telling us we're going to pay for something that lasts for years and years ALL IN ONE YEAR!
So much for that comparison of 'government' to a private 'business'.

And that is only ONE, of a multitude, of examples that could be cited where the "figures" governments are using DO NOT FIT THE FACTS. Lets get some meaningful accounting, and then see just how badly we're being robbed, and WHY.


.

"It will also be the first of many new consumption taxes that will be added so that the government can correctly say that they didnt raise your taxes, its your habits that raised your taxes."
----------------------------------------
You can see where this is heading, surely? When we adjust our "habits" and cut back on the purchases that are optional, (everything on the list of newly HST taxables except funerals, someone noted the other day), the expected revenue not only won't materialise, but there will be a fall off in the production of those 'optional' goods and services.

And an unemployment of those providing them. Who is going to end up picking up the tab for keeping the unemployed? Or keeping them "under control" when they grow dis-satisfied with their new-found lot in life? Either way it'll be costly.

Under the current thinking, that will have to be met from further taxation. And we'll see, probably in fairly short order, the HST applied to basic necessities, too ~ like food.

Current taxation is absolute robbery. It's an effort by governments, both Federal and Provincial, to prop up a financial system which has a fatal flaw in it. It is no longer fully "self-liquidating", and is becoming less and less so with each advance in technology. And every attempt at wringing more taxation out of us makes the situation worse.

ALL the current political Parties are on the same wave length in their universal belief that 're-distribution' through taxation will somehow improve our lot. Or at least the lot of the different constituency those Parties owe their existence to, i.e., big Business, big Labour, and all, ultimately, to big Finance. It simply will NOT WORK. Those who believe they will see more 'pleasure' than 'pain' through the HST are deluding themselves. The 'pleasure' will be fleeting, and from then on it's going to be ALL 'pain'.

If you want to have a Consumption Tax that's simple, and cost effective, and removes the tendency to try to beat it, have a simple 2% Transactions Tax, and apply it to everything. The rate isn't high enough to induce anyone to cheat on most day to day purchases, and the more expensive, occasional major ones can easily be monitored.

Most people nowadays wouldn't even bend over to pick up two-cents if they saw it on the sidewalk. And 2%, charged each time a dollar changes hands in any sale, for everything, (because the HST will be on everything we buy before we're rid of it, if we don't stop it now), only going ONE WAY, (no Input Tax Credits, and NO EXEMPTIONS FOR EXPORTS), would bring in a truly prodiguous amount of money to fund government. So much so that other pernicious taxation, like Income Tax and Property Tax, could be greatly reduced or eliminated altogether.

Well thanks for the shot at my math skills, Eagleone - as some other posts point out, we still cannot come up with the magic $2500 number.
PS - I would put my math skills up against pretty much anybody I know ;-)

LOL Interceptor, I didn't even realize I took the shot. I'll take your word for it... you're good at math.

Socred are you saying we should tax every single banking transaction?

If you are, than we agree on something. I heard something like a .0005% tax on every banking transaction would produce something like $250 Billion a year globally... not sure what the national or provincial numbers would be... but if you want a transaction tax, than it should be equal opportunity, and the banksters should pay theirs too on their speculation transactions that got us in this mess in the first place I would hope.... I would gladly pay a .0005% tax if I knew the global speculators were also paying on their quick in quick out turning of the markets with leveraged capital and at minimum contributing some tax to the system, rather than getting the free ride they have had to date.

We all know our politicians will not tax the people that engineered this recession (in fact those speculators will get a bail out with our tax dollars)... instead the politicians will lie to us at election time, and then implement a middle class tax once elected....

"MrPG, April 10, 2010, 8:37AM"

The alternative MrPG, would be to stay the same, PST / GST! What is it you can't seem to get your brain wrapped around on this one?

We don't want anymore taxes, and we don't want them taxes called a different name, to suck some more cash out of our wallets!!! What don't you understand about that MrPG?? You didn't listen when you were in Government, and you don't listen now! Maybe you would like to relinquish some, or maybe most of your political pension, that you failed to earn!! That would be a hell of a start.

Of course, while you are receiving that pension package (approx. $100,000.00 plus) from your Government "cronies", why would you give a "Royal Rats A$$" about us tax payers, who pays the BILL, your bill???

Have a nice day Bruce.

Frankly I find the better solution to be HST set at 10%.

Still gives business a break, makes the accounting a little easier, allows the provincial government to cut back on staff and takes out the redtape for PST.

Consumers dont take the hit, yet the break is there.

Only problem? The provincial government doesnt get the extra cash flow they desire.

Try this a see how much extra you will be paying

http://www.bcndp.ca/hst/calc?&list=ahstcalculator

Using that calculator it will cost me an $903.00 personally.

The majority from eating out, 2nd highest was cable, internet, phone.

That calculator tells me I will be paying $428.96 per year more in tax. But since it's located on the NDP website I am extremely suspicious of what calculating algorithm they are using.

I would be interested to know if they are willing to share the code they used to come up with these "results". I don't trust the Liberals as far as I can toss large bag of canine excrement... but I trust the NDP even less.

Okay - good comments. If we want no more taxes, what part of spending should we cut. We all know the outrage that happens when that is proposed.

I think the big question, Stompin, is WHY does the government desire this "extra cash flow"? It's a question that should be answered, because it should seem quite obvious by now that whenever the question is put to them, "How much is enough?", the answer is always going to come back, "MORE."

The FACT of the matter is, there'll NEVER be "enough". Because there never IS "enough" ( 'money' itself) in the first place.

But aside from that, lets have some proper business accounting applied to the government's finances, so we can actually see where we stand. And where all this supposedly needed extra 'cash flow' is really flowing to.

socredible,

There is no question of WHY the government in power wants more tax money, that is obvious. What is naive it to expect any other government to expect anything less the way things are now.

I see one HUGE problem with our current system. We dont pay the Premier, Prime Minister or any members of parliment enough.

Dont laugh and scoff at me for that statement, thing about it. Why would the people best qualified for those jobs work for what we pay? They make way, way more money in the private sector. In order for them to run politicaly they have to put their business holdings in trust. So they sacrifice their income, their business's and their private life. For what? The measly pitance we pay them?

In order to get better people, the system has to change. I dont have the answer, its a very broad problem.

Eagleone:-"Socred are you saying we should tax every single banking transaction?"
------------------------------------------
No, Eagle, though I have seen that proposal often made by those who imagine it would stop lending by the Banks for 'speculation'.

I'm not convinced it would.

Stompin, how can it be obvious WHY when
there is no proper accounting?

We have a Budget, which, we're told, is supposed to be "balanced".

But is it "balanced" from taxation ~ does the government
actually recover the cost of everything it's spent in one year, including all its
spending on capital works, solely from taxation in THAT SAME YEAR?

Or is it "balanced" through "loans"? Which differ from 'taxes', since when the government borrows it creates a financial ASSET which is not created when it pays for the same things directly through taxes.

People are always comparing what goes on in government finances
to what happens in private business. I don't object to that, but lets make a meaningful comparison. No private business, not yours, mine, nor anyone else's runs solely off a 'budget'.

We do 'budget', it's a useful financial tool. But we do it in the context of a complete set of books which properly record whether we're increasing or decreasing our equity. Why shouldn't the government accounts be kept the same way?

As for increasing the pay of the Premier, or Prime Minister, or even a President, if we had a system like that of the USA, to attract greater expertise to the job, I don't agree.

The role of the "expert" is to be "on tap". Not "on top". He, or she, is properly found in the professional Civil Service. Where such people are competitively paid for what they know, and their abilities as "administrators".

The role of the elected politician is NOT primarally that of "administration", which is a technical matter; but rather to determine POLICY.

To find out, from the general public, what that public wants, and does not want, in the way of RESULTS, and see that those who CAN obtain those results for us do just that. Or get someone in there who can.

Some of the best government we ever had in this province was delivered by WAC Bennett, and Mr. Bennett,
and all his Cabinet, and all our MLAS were certainly not very highly paid. Most MLAS had to hold down a job in the community to be able to live ~ a MLAs salary in those days wasn't adequate by itself.

I've seen no
evidence that we've had any better politicians since their salaries were raised to their present lofty heights, and being a MLA became a full time career. And I
doubt raising them any further would improve the situation whatsoever.

I agree with that. Politicians are to highly paid as it is... it only attracts those that want to live the high life like that Jaffer character, and we don't need more of those in politics.

Entering politics should be about serving the community first and foremost, and the reward should be the name you build for yourself for posterity that says your were involved in the community and contributed to society in these positive aspects helping to build the society (country, province, city ect) of tomorrow. Money only perverts those motivations and contributes to corruption in politics that cost us far more than any mistakes made by an underpaid politician with good will and good intentions.

The fact of the matter as I see it is if you want to have good politics than you need a sovereign free enterprise media, and not a monopoly capitalist media in conjunction with party politics that perverts the politic process through biased reporting designed to limit choices, as well as projecting a perception (only option or we're all doomed they tell us) that has alien motivations to what society really should be focused on.

In Canada virtually all our media is controlled by zionist interest with duel loyalties to Israel. Global zionism is the New World Order ideology and they control all the mass media, finance, and global institutions that influence how nation states can act. A conspiracy organized at the state level with monopoly over finance and media that enables it to take the key high ground in positions critical to the sovereignty of nations. Nations, including the USA and Canada, are only permitted to act in ways that are conducive to the ideological whims of global zionism... otherwise the media and political parties carry out the removal process of those not with the program. Without their control of the media and finance they would lose their global sovereignty over the nations of the world, and only when that happens will we have political parties that will be free of their yolk and implementing policies that are universal in nature for the betterment of all of mankind and not just the special interests that in effect have stolen our democracy from us through ill gotten treaties (ie. NAFTA, WTO, HST, ect).

I don't attend church, but I feel strongly that the church had a role to play in protecting society from these forces and has failed. Its why the church is now irrelevant in politics.

My solution to the problem would be to have all foreign ownership of media outlawed. Break up the monopoly mass media into smaller more local and diverse units. Possibly have government support (ie CBC) for the infrastructure to enable smaller media outlets.

Ideally I think if we had TV, radio, and newspapers that were owned by coalitions of various faiths in conjunction with local government financing we would be well served. A coalition media outlet option like this with programing that reflected universal values would eventually squeeze out the zionist (tribalist) propaganda structure and provide a more balanced perspective of the world around us... well protecting society from nefarious ownership with ulterior agenda's.

This should be done, and can be done with our current economic structure if we had leaders in the church and cable companies that offered this option of choice in their programing. What would help is if we had a sovereign monetary system that had universal laws strongly protected with bankster regulations and taxation that prevents leveraged capital from once again tempting media ownership into quick profits under the consolidation process of 'synergetic media models'. Its the only way to stop the New World Order from creating the chaos that enables their agenda of monopolizing global power to control our democracies and our lives. The world is in great danger today and blind of this because we don't have sovereign media reporting the facts.

This HST scam in a real democracy protected by a real sovereign media would never have happened in the dark the way it has. The HST pre planning before the election would have been reported and would have been an election issue where the voters where informed of what exactly it was they were voting for. The attempts to bring in a tax like this would have had opposition in the mass media holding to account politicians that are bringing in globalist policies without a mandate from the people (ie BC Rail as well). People would be aware of all aspects of the proposal and would have an opportunity for informed decisions. That has not happened and will not happen regardless of whether or not politicians think they need to be paid more in order to listen to the public and do what is right.

AIMHO

Lovethenorth, its been said often by almost everyone not working for government that government employees are way overpaid when compared to the private sector. Rather than raise taxes for the middle class wouldn't it be more appropriate to bring government compensation in line with the private sector? Government employees will obviously object and argue we need more revenue for government as the solution... but even a 10% trim of compensation would eliminate the deficit, so why should the private sector carry all the burden is another way of looking at this?

Eagleone, glad to see you have a postive suggestion on how to tackle the issue at hand. It is people like you that can move us forward, versus all the 'pure complainers'.

"The alternative MrPG, would be to stay the same, PST / GST! What is it you can't seem to get your brain wrapped around on this one?"

The status quo is not a viable option. A consupmtion tax, like the HST, is probably the fairest way to go as much as I hate to say it.