Cut the PST?

[Pete Podoski]

Let's look at the big picture.

Who pays P.S.T. on purchases? Everyone.

Who has the ability to avoid paying their fair share of P.S.T. on purchases? Under the law, no one.

Who pays income tax? The middle class and wealthy, as poor people don't pay any income tax.

If the P.S.T. is cut or eliminated, the poor will benefit because they have to pay it along with everyone else.

If income tax rates go up to compensate lost revenues, the poor won't be affected because they don't pay income tax.

The P.S.T. cut would help everyone, especially the poor who are disproportionately disadvantaged by having to pay an extra 7% on their purchases.

[flamingfingers]

^^ "The poor" don't have much money left over to spend on 'things' that attract PST once they have paid for food (PST exempt), and housing (PST exempt). Used clothing and footwear under $100 per item is also PST exempt (and I am sure "the poor" take advantage of that, as they should). Bus fares do not attract PST.

I suspect that the presence or absence of the PST is not of critical concern for "the poor"......

[Veovis]

SO neat that FF thinks people with netflix, amazon, cell phones, computers, software, tire changes, car repairs, travel, itunes, ikea or any extra number of regular purchases are not worth considering,

So much easier to make silly claims like "the poor" or "the rich".....when the truth is "The ignorant"

[OKkayak]

SO neat that FF thinks people with netflix, amazon, cell phones, computers, software, tire changes, car repairs, travel, itunes, ikea or any extra number of regular purchases are not worth considering,

So much easier to make silly claims like "the poor" or "the rich".....when the truth is "The ignorant"

And having half of those things is why the poor will remain the poor, regardless of the 70 cents of PST they'll have to pay on their Netflix.

[Veovis]

well certainly, but how many times has the ideas of budgeting well been slapped down as a a rude idea.......

The reality is that people spend. Should they, in many cases no, yet they still do. Though I think the PST changes aren't the best plan, and changing other taxes may be better it is still at least something, instead of a lot of nothing

[Gone_Fishin]

The PST makes all items more expensive, whether it's on your sales slip or not. Because it's layered throughout the process of getting that (used shirt, bread, apartment) to the consumer, it jacks up the price as producers and distributors pass the cost on to the person at the end of the purchase chain. In the case of low income people, that built-in tax increases prices and affects them more than those with more income on a percentage basis. Removing the PST will help out low income people more than anyone else in proportion to their incomes.

[normaM]

I would like to see the PST gone. Title transfer tax on housing can go too.

[Jlabute]

ALL the parties are "Social Debit" as I can hardly stand any of them.
Saying that, a reprieve from PST is tempting, and we know it will be re-acquired opaquely and permanently else-where. The BC carbon tax is slated to go to $45/tonne from $40/tonne April 2021 and has proven to not reduce emissions. The home-owner grant decreased for 2020. A new speculation tax, and a new employer health tax to replace MSP. The malignancy of government will grow, the debt will grow, and Government must find ways to squeeze $$$ out of us since they HAVE to.

[normaM]

It's only for a year, then 3% the following year. Gotta say I'm swayed.
Not like there is much difference between the NDP and Libs

[liisgo]

Its kind of funny the response that losing the PST for a year is going to hurt the ones that need assistance and money via those taxes. Not to challenge the fact that what makes you think that the money the government collects is going to the right people in the first place? Besides that, if the tax is so important as many say, then you would all be ok with it maybe being increased by say another 3 % or so to help people even better? Why not?
Every single person will save money on purchases to some extent, how could you argue that?
Maybe there is more than enough taxes and that its the governments faults for not using it properly in the first place.
Maybe businesses would see sales and services increase.
I do not believe for one second that trusting our governments of the day to be able to apply our tax dollars in any meaningful way is realistic.

[Jonrox]

This is what will happen...

- PST is cut and the government deficit rises by $8 billion next year alone (nevermind the subsequent years when it’s only 3%).
- People then rant about the government running huge deficits (remember they were in favour of these deficits though).
- Spending cuts and tax increases follow in order to pay for the lack of PST revenue.
- People then rant about spending cuts and tax increases.

This is a short-sighted and unnecessary move, meant for one thing and one thing only... to buy your vote.

[normaM]

^^ yea well 7% bought mine
Lived most of my Life where there was no PST, be happy to see it gone here.

[liisgo]

This is what will happen...

- PST is cut and the government deficit rises by $8 billion next year alone (nevermind the subsequent years when it’s only 3%).
- People then rant about the government running huge deficits (remember they were in favour of these deficits though).
- Spending cuts and tax increases follow in order to pay for the lack of PST revenue.
- People then rant about spending cuts and tax increases.

This is a short-sighted and unnecessary move, meant for one thing and one thing only... to buy your vote.

So then, if the tax is needed obviously to lower the amount of debt the governments continue to add every year, then it would make sense to increase it to the point where no more debt is incurred? Or less. Are we having so desperately needing to continually feed the failure of our system and governments within? We cannot run our families financial's the same way. Companies cannot continue to do it. Is it not the fundamental operating principals that seem to be so very wrong if we just continue to bury ourselves further in debt? Maybe the focus should be there. There is no end to the increasing of our debt.
It will continue until we all realize we are not entitled to the standard of today.
For vote's, agreed, to stimulate economy? of course, to help all people? of course it will.
To add to our debt, Absolutely, like every other incapable government and its operating standard's.
One day we will be forced to deal with our failings, but not yet.

[fluffy]

After you strip away all the BS justifications you end up back at the fact that this giveaway will benefit those who aren’t in need of help, at the expense of those who do. It’s a bribe, and the really disappointing part is that it will work on many who aren’t hurting at all.

[Pete Podoski]

After you strip away all the BS justifications you end up back at the fact that this giveaway we’ll benefit those who aren’t in need of help, at the expense of those who do. It’s a bribe, and the really disappointing part is that it will work on many who aren’t hurting at all.

I thought poor people needed help.

Well, guess I was wrong. Thanks for the clarification.