How can this panel be independant when it was hand picked by the government? And if I remember right it was all business people, and the HST is good for business....
I am sure this will be really unbias...ya right!

The people of B.C. are victims of a carefully spun marketing campain by the Liberals to ensure the HST stays.
They bank on people's opposition to it decreasing over time...and it's working.
It always does,and they know it.
They are also banking on people forgeting the lies that brought the HST to us.
And not just the HST lies.
Some of us will not forget that part,particularly at the ballot box.
B.C. stood up to Liberal bullsh**t and manipulation when it mattered most,and we should be damn proud of ourselves.
Backing off and laying down again will be a huge mistake that we will regret,without question.
Accept the HST and the next stop will be an increase,without a doubt.

Your 'input' will be meaningless, the final report has already been written. It's going to tell us that such a tax shift, one that makes a whole range of goods and services 7% more expensive to BC consumers, is 'good' for us. That it will bring about an increase in our 'production' and a decrease in our 'consumption' ~ and make you believe that such an outcome is somehow desirable. Shouldn't be too hard. A whole bunch of you on here already believe that. You deserve the kind of government you've got. As for the rest of us, if WE won't stand up against it and DEMAND better, we do, too.

Amen socredible...amen!

How can any new Tax be good ? Until August 2010 we only paid GST on Hydro, now we pay PST too,called HST at 12%, that means a 7% increase in your Hydro Bill for Taxes only and I heat with Hydro, no Gas Line in the Sticks. I don't care how you dress it up, we are ripped of by all levels of Government. Every Day we are get more like European Countries, Taxed and more Taxed.

"seeking "fact-based" input"

Now there is a challenge if I ever saw one! The entire decision to go with the HST was based on hypothesis. Now they want facts? The first transformation that will need to happen is to go from opinion as to what will happen to the facts of what has happened.

Projections into some unknown future are not facts. And who exactly is it that needs to be doing better? The producer? The consumer? Both of them?

I agree with consumption taxes if they are used in an attempt to influence the purchase of specific goods and services such as:
Tobacco taxes
Liquor taxes
Fossil fuel taxes
Foreign manufactured goods taxes
Rap Music DVD taxes

But straight across the board consumer taxes make no sense.

Outwest-

They are giving us what they call a 'Residential Energy Credit" which is equivalent to the PST portion of the HST - 7%.

However, where those who live in the "sticks" are really getting screwed is with the two step billing. The step 1 threshold is so low that anyone who has an electric hot water tank is already way over the limit from that alone, and the step 2 rate is 40% higher.

Nice to see that some people ARE paying attention to the bullsh**t and spin involved with the HST!

I know all about Rebates or Credits and Step 1 and 2 Billing and I don't care how they spin it, it will cost us more. About conserving ,the same People think nothing about flying around the Globe to run from one Meeting to the next, in any Case I will cut more Fire Wood, so I can save up some Money for the Swimming Pool the Idiots want to build. Increase the Taxes so we can form the Aquatic Club and be ready.

It's not rocket science folks. With the introduction of HST, taxes paid by business (primarily BIG business) have been decreased significantly and the burden for their previous contributions have spread amongst the general consuming public. So yes, it is indeed a tax shift.

What big business will say is that the introduction of HST results in savings for them and this is true. They will also say that these savings will allow them to hire more people or reinvest in their operations, so that they can remain competitive. This may be true in some cases, but in others, the increase to the bottom line may just be paid out to senior management or squirrelled away for a rainy day. Who really knows. The government doesn't, they just assume that it will happen. They have no control over it at all.

To me, this is just another example of governments bowing to corporate interests over what actual people desire. I have no issue with taxation policy that is meant to increase investment and encourage job creation, but do it in a way that maintains some level of control. For example, how about if a corporation employs non Canadian workers they only get a 40% deduction on the labour costs for those people. If they employ Canadian workers, give them a 150% deduction. Or, you could increase capital cost allowance rates for equipment installed in Canadian production facilities. There are all sorts of ways you could get creative with tax policy.

One of the biggest issues I have with HST is that it's basically a blank cheque handout to big corporations and there are no assurances that BC or even Canada will reap the benefits. To me, it is insane to give up that level of control in regards to taxation policy.

Unlike consumer taxes on liquor, cigarettes, rap music DVDs, and many foreign manufactured goods, taxes on fossil fuels supposedly designed to reduce our consumption of same, are NOT justifiable in a country like Canada.

We have to heat our homes, transport essential foodstuffs, commute to employment, and often fuel the means of that employment, all with fossil fuels.

To say that we could do the same things using alternate, more costly or far less convenient fuels ~ which in some cases we could ~ does not wash with our fetish for exporting fossil fuels en masse elsewhere. Often to countries where their Consumers' and manufacturers' cost of using them, even WITHOUT the Carbon and other taxes WE pay on such products here, is already LESS than ours. Hardly a way to encourage that "level playing field" so desired in international trade.

Andyfreeze,I usually agree with most things that you have to say,however to say we should be damn proud of ourselves,makes me cringe because it gives the impression that we have done our part and no further action is required.Sure we should be proud,but their is still a lot of work that has to be accomplished.The people of Egypt have a right to be damn proud of themselves,as they accomplished there goal.We still have the HST,and Campbell is still poking his head out of the foxhole every now and again.The same bunch that instituted the HST are still in the mix,and will eventually lead our province for the next two years,maybe longer.As to people providing facts about the HST hurting them financially,a person may be able to prove it with there regular bills(hydro,etc.),but how is a person supposed to prove any other increase,unless they kept a receipt from before the HST took effect and a receipt from after that date,and even then every thing they bought would have to be the same,in order to have a proper comparison.Otherwise the panel will come with some lame excuse as to why the costs had increased.

I agree jakeadoo!
My point is,we did good.
We made them sit up and take notice,and that is rare in B.C. politics...or canadian politics in general!
We accomplished something that had them tripping over each other.
Unfortunately,if we back down now and return to buying into the spin,I won't be quite so proud of us!
Politicians don't really like the voters very much,they simply tolerate us because they have to,and they really don't like it when the voters push back!

Bottom line is no matter who we elect they will be corrupt. So we have choices, we can bitch and bitch about how much we pay while we pay it, shutup and just pay or move.

I wonder what the folks in Afganistan bitch about.

socredible, your point about taxing fuels would be easier to agree with if over the last decade we didn't see an explosion in the number of people who CHOOSE to drive vehicles that get ridiculous fuel mileage. If such vehicles were a "necessity", there wouldn't have been such a massive increase in their popularity and we would've seen similar numbers of these types of vehicles on the roads years ago . . . which we didn't.

The rest of your post I can agree with. That said, it would be pretty easy to set up a system where "essential" fuels are not taxed in the same manner as fuel at the pumps. You could do it through rebates or some other system if there was a will on the part of governments to actually do it.

"We have to heat our homes, transport essential foodstuffs, commute to employment, and often fuel the means of that employment, all with fossil fuels."

So does everyone else in the world who live in a controlled climate environment and choose to travel far distances just for the hell of it and buy goods from far away instead of building capacity closer at hand.

It is all a matter of choice and the choices depend in part on the cost of doing things one way versus another.

But more importantly, we can see that other countries who have the higher fuel costs tend to be the countries that invest in technology to offset those costs while continuing to live good quality lifestyles ..... while we live in trailers and shacks we see on the sides of the roads as we drive from one side of the country to the other.

The money collected from Carbon Taxes ISN'T going to be invested in further developing fuel saving technology. It goes directly into General Revenue.

As for people having a "choice" in the type of vehicle they'll drive, that choice is like choosing who you're going to elect to office when the 'Policy' of EVERY Party is essentially the SAME. Some choice.

The vehicles that all the manufacturers offer often do NOT meet our needs, nor what many of us really want. But that's ALL 'they' offer. And when the old one wears out and we need a new one, there's little we can do but find whatever comes closest to what does fit our needs.

Sometimes that involves buying a vehicle that burns more fuel ~ like having to get a pick-up with a club cab or crew cab, for instance, both heavier than a single cab, and more fuel hungry, because you don't have a bench seat in a single cab anymore, and the little jump seat in the middle is all but useless for carrying an adult passenger. So you end up buying a bigger pickup if you're regularly carrying more than two adults. I'm sure there are numerous other examples.

Sometimes some of the more fuel efficient vehicles are unsuitable for the type of driving we do ~ unsafe, even. Our 2007 Chevrolet Malibu with the Ecotech aluminum block 4-cylinder engine is more fuel efficient than the 1992 Chevrolet Corsica V-6 cast iron block engined car it replaced. But where the old car would go down the highway at the speed limit in the rain without hydro-planing, the new one won't. It'll be all over the road unless you really watch it, it's just too light.

Socredible, I highly doubt there has ever been more choices for the consumer when it comes to different vehicles for them to choose from. The issue, more often than not, is that marketing works and people think they "need" the biggest and baddest thing on the lot. Talk to any truck salesman about the people out there buying 1 tons and how those vehicles typically get used. For every one that actually pulls a large travel trailer, there are probably 3 or 4 that pull mall duty. Most people could get by with a sedan (much like they did in the "old" days), but now they "need" an SUV. Our "need" for oversized vehicles is pretty much a North American phenomena, with the exception of very rich people in other countries who can afford the fuel they use. For them it's a status thing and not a "need". Yeah, I know, everyone that buys these vehicles "needs" 4WD here. Right . . .

As an aside, your 2007 Chevy Malibu cannot go highway speeds in the rain without hydro-planing? That's very bizarre. I drove a Honda Fit that could accomplish that no problem at all. Sounds like there is something wrong with your car, it has poor engineering or perhaps you need different tires.

Isn't it amazing how we focus on the relatively small amount of fuel we burn when some "...choose to travel far distances just for the hell of it..", as if preventing such wasteful habits through taxation will "save the Earth", while we completely overlook the enormous amount of energy that's wasted moving raw materials half-way around the world to be processed, and then bringing the finished products that far back again to be sold?

All because it's supposed to be "cheaper". How can it be? A hour's labour is an hour's labour, whether it's carried on here or in some far away land like China.

The true test of whether something is really "cheaper", or not, should be based on how much PRODUCT that "hour's labour" ACTUALLY yields, plus the ACTUAL amount of all the "energy" from other, non-human sources that's expended. Which is a lot, when you figure how much fuel it takes to move products both ways.

When we measure this in physical terms it shows something far different from what we get when we measure it in financial terms. And it's pretty hard to dispute physical reality. Though we have governments, and others, who are wont to try.

It could also be the road we use it on, NMG. (Not up around Prince George). Since many other vehicles ssem to have the same problem on that highway.

Aside form that, though, it is a much lighter vehicle, (and less comfortable to ride in), than it's predecessor. Which was a comparatively same sized vehicle.

True enough, there are a lot of different vehicle types now, more so than before.
But often the manufacturers and dealers are providing what suits them more than us.

For instance, my company has a 2006 Chevrolet half-ton. A basic, plain-jane, 5 speed manual, V-6, two wheel drive pickup. We use it for pick up and delivery of things as needed ~ lubricants, fuel, parts, small lumber deliveries occasionally, etc. I take it back and forth to work.

It has 17 inch wheels on it, because that's the way they all come now. And probably having wheels that size improves the mileage it'll get a bit on the highway. But they also make it too high geared.

If I were going to pull a trailer with it, I doubt it would ever start on a hill. No "lugging" power whatsoever ~ not like the old Chevrolet straight six used to have, but you can't get that anymore.

And no more step-side box either. So a twenty litre pail of hydraulic oil is a lot more awkward to get over the top of the box rails, as is just about everything else. But that one is 'good' compared to some of the ones with 18 or 20 inch wheels! I don't think it's always the customer who initiates what will be built and offered for sale. Sometimes to get a vehicle that'll still do what you need it to do, you now have to take something that isn't as suitable for many other things, including being as fuel efficient.

Gus:-"But more importantly, we can see that other countries who have the higher fuel costs tend to be the countries that invest in technology to offset those costs while continuing to live good quality lifestyles ..... while we live in trailers and shacks we see on the sides of the roads as we drive from one side of the country to the other."

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

I would take it that you're possibly referring to several European countries? They may indeed live "..good quality lifestyles..", but I've never heard of any of them having a greater influx of immigrants FROM here than they have of people leaving FOR here.

We always wait too long to get an offense going against the government of the day.. We should have been putting pressure on for Campbell to resign when he pleaded guilty to impaired driving. Why did we let it ride?? Apathetic, compalcent, lazy.

Nice to see how easy we can get sidetracked from an HST Fact Finding Mission to Fuel Consumption in China/Europe.

These arguments have no bearing on the big picture.

The fact of the matter is the people who fought against the HST were all volunteers, they have no money, and very little organization. It would be almost impossible for them to come up with some kind of **Facts** on the HST/.

The Government knows this and thats why they are asking for facts.

What the Government and their minions want is of little consequence because at the end of the day all they are doing is stalling, and lying, so that they can somehow keep this tax in place long enough to get it permanent.

People have to wake up and smell the flowers. Since the successful petition the Liberals and NDP have done nothing about the HST except to make some vague, reference to a binding referendum in Sept., which if it actually takes place, would not include reimbursing the HST already paid, nor would in necessarily include re-instating the tax system in place in June of 2010.

This is all about stalling for time, getting a new (old) leader elected, and trying to maintain the status quo. They beleive that we are all fools, and if we let them get away with this BS, we will prove them right.

If they want FACTS lets look at the FACT that 700,000 people signed a petition to get rid of the HST. Between 70/80% of the people in the Province do not want this tax.

How much more FACTS do you need??. We dont need a bunch of people who stand to benefit from this tax, running around trying to convince us to jump through hoops, to show that this is a good tax.

The people have spoken. AXE THE TAX. If they dont get rid of the HST, then lets get rid of the Government.

This is no longer a subject for debate. In simplistic terms we go to referendum and settle the issue. The rest is all BS.

That, and too many Liberals in Campbell's government were "fearful", supertech. Fearful that NONE of them had a clue what to do without "fearless leader" at the helm. That's what happens when we have a Party in office made up of people who are only interested in keeping "the Hoarde" at bay. Who have no vision other than trying to protect what they see the other side trying to take away from them. It's as if they're trying to delay the inevitable, instead of offering desired alternatives to it. Desired by ALL, not just an elite that hopes to milk the fear of "the Hoarde" for their own benefit.

Agreed!

Well said socredible!
In well over 40 years of voting,I have never seen such self-serving polticians at the deep end of the public trough,
And I have seen some real winners over the years!
Nothing compares to what we have now attempting to pass for a government!

Since we are off topic anyway I'll throw this out to Socredible - your 1992 Corsica was about 500lbs LIGHTER than your new Malibu is. The Corsicas were around 2700lbs and the New Malibu is close to 3200. :)

I find that hard to believe, interceptor. Since there is an aluminum block engine in our Malibu and there was a cast iron one in the Corsica. Possibly some of the Malibus came with a cast-iron V-6, too, and they might be heavier, but I doubt the one we have is. There is considerably more plastic used in the Malibu, and a noticeable abscense of padding. The seats and arm rests are thinner, and nowhere near as comfortable. Coming down a highway when there's a strong wind blowing the Malibu seems to be way more affected in the way it handles than the old Corsica was.