There is a lot of discussion and false information flying around concerning the HST.
I am not an economist or a tax specialist so I can't claim to be more knowledgeable than your John Average.
There are several independent reports out there that, if people are interested, they should read.
There are two points I want to make. One is demonstrated by a simple math exercise.
Grab your handy pocket calculator, type in 300 (the lower end of what the anti HST camp claims the HST is going to cost you) and divide by 0.07. For those of you without a calculator handy, this will come out to 4285 dollars.
Now, take out the list of items previously exempt under the old PST regime. Ask yourself, do I spend 4,285 dollars every year on the items in that list? I doubt it. Certainly not if you are in the lower tax brackets. I wonder why the anti HST camp is making this claim?
I am ignoring the promised reduction in sales tax because it brings me to my second point.
Consumption taxes are a superior method of tax collection because they inherently optional. Disregard the arguments around economic stimulation, who is going to pay more, what the effects are going to be and ask yourself what mode of tax collection do you prefer?
Income tax, which you cannot avoid unless you are super rich and you can access RRSP and other tax havens, or consumption taxes which you can avoid paying by not buying stuff.
A large number of our societies problems revolve around excessive consumption.
Consumer debt is through the roof, we buy too much stuff as it is and many people are drowning in debt because of it. Debt that many people pay enormous amounts of interest on.
Any tax that discourages excessive consumption will save people well over 300 dollars a year if it can temper our consumption frenzy and bring the debt burden down.
D'Arcy Michiel
