From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Death of Canada (Was: Death of America) [long]
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:31:51 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.025141.19490@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.223026.29369@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>
>>now if that was Gary saying that, i'd not be surprised, because he has done
>>this once too often. i'll assume you weren't trying to mislead the readers
>>(as Gary is). if the old tax was $1-2 billion, and the new tax is $18
>>billion, the old tax did not take in "somewhat less" -- the new tax is
>>between 800% and 1700% higher than the old tax, depending on if you
>>use the $2B or $1B figure. and this was my essential point in response
>>to Gary's lame attempt to justify the GST as a replacement for the MST, 
>>a line he quoted directly from the government bureaucracy, and dropped
>>like a hot potato after i forced him to try to defend the math.
>>
>
>The old hidden MST raised about $15 billion, the new visible (now that
>is a government with guts...they could have hidden it, like the Liberals
>plan to) was planned to raise about $20 billion dollars (with the
>recession, it was a few billion less),

i don't know whose numbers to believe. maybe if you guys differed
by *less* than an order of magnitude...

>with the difference paid out
>it sales tax credits to low income earners to ameliorate the
>regressivity of a consumption tax. 

"regressivity" is a perversion we can discuss another time, perhaps.

>>close. it was necessary to support the federal government's outrageous
>>social spending agenda. i have already posted numbers to this effect.
>>
>
>The Tories trimmed the social safety net...and had to bring higher
>taxes, because the Liberals put in place social programs paid for
>on credit, without the taxes to support them.  The Tories had the
>unenviable job of trimming the social spending a where they felt
>they could, and raising the taxes the Liberals were to cowardly
>to raise to pay for their programs.

they didn't do it enough. they campaigned as conservatives. they
claimed to oppose the liberal policies but they did very little
to alter them when they were elected. it's not as if mulroney is
popular now -- he might as well have done what he said he was
going to do...

and yes, they're better than the liberals, but is that saying much?

anyone else find it strange that the government keeps in place
all the laws to which they vehemently objected while the opposition?

>>>It is also a more "honest" tax in that, unlike the old MST, it is
>>>not (usually) hidden in the price of the good or service.
>>
>>i agree with this, except for one thing. the "honesty" part only
>>applies to the money collected by the new tax which replaces the old.
>>so the first $2B of the $18B can be attributed to replacing the old
>>tax. the remaining $16B was a *dishonest* piggyback job.
>>
>
>The government is still in a net loss position with respect to the
>switch because of the recession...but the GST will become a cash cow 
>when growth returns.

i said it before, and i'll say it again. my objections to the GST
are primarily due to how deceptively it was advertised, and to the
out-of-control social spending it perpetuates.

and of course the same "loss position" due to the recession would
also have happened to the MST.

>>>However, the GST is probably one of the fiscally sane, although immensely
>>>unpopular, things that the PCs did. If you want the goodies, you have to
>>>pay for them, and the GST is a better method of paying for them than the
>>>MST was.
>>
>>that's more like it!
>>"paying for goodies" is right. *not* "reflects the changing nature od
>>the post-industrial economy".
>
>Every body except the US has a consumption tax...Canada had no choice...
>if you raise income taxes to an uncompetitive level with US rates, all
>the talented Canadians would leave.

exactly. except you forgot one thing: tax is tax.
the *smart* talented canadians can figure this out, and those
who have an option, *are* leaving.
same with the companies. you can't fool all the people all the time.

>The US will have a value-added tax before the end of the century... 
>rich people don't like high income taxes...so they'll force a
>consumption tax...              

i don't doubt it. i don't like it, but i don't doubt it.
only proves my point even more.

--
charles
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:64604 soc.motss:52740 ca.politics:10404 ba.politics:7778