Talk:Harmonized sales tax

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Could I ask Mr. Funny something or other who is an obvious Liberal to not change my edit. I have used references so my edit is verifiable. The latest studies show that the HST in Ontario will net the Gov't an additional $1.6 Billion in revenue, just from the HST on oil. Also the HST is now charged on many items that were PST exempt before. The latest study shows that the HST in Ontario will cost your average Ontarian an additional $800 per year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.108.142 (talk) 05:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

Should mention that despite all the "obvious benefits" it took a billion-bollar bribe to get us (our gummints) to swallow it. And how its initial provisions required the taxes be hidden in the price (possibly part of the "Blending" that was its original name), which was so disparate from the rest of country some mail-order businesses such as Lee Valley warned they'd not sell to us at all because it wasn't worth printing a separate catalogue. Kwantus 23:23, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

Applicability outside the HST region[edit]

Unlike other provincial sales taxes, the HST applies to items sold by vendors from outside the HST provinces. I'm not exactly sure of how far this applicability spreads, but if someone could find a source for it and add it into the article, that would be great. --RealGrouchy (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subtitle bias[edit]

While the article is dealing with facts the subtitles suggest bias. Why do facts need translation?--scuro (talk) 14:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the subtitle reads, "Transition," which the facts do describe. This is different from "Translation." I don't have a problem with the current wording. Dheppens (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the following unsourced text[edit]

I'm introducing more sources to the article and also removing the content below as it is unsourced. If someone could help find sources and reintroduce it into the article I'd appreciate the help. --Pdelongchamp (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first attempt at creating a harmonized sales tax was in Saskatchewan shortly after the GST was introduced in 1991. The Progressive Conservative government under Premier Grant Devine harmonized its existing PST with the GST - ostensibly to make tax collection easier for merchants. The harmonization proved to be immensely unpopular.

The GST itself was very unpopular at the time and perhaps more importantly the federal tax was charged on many items the Saskatchewan PST was not (such as restaurant meals); harmonization was therefore seen as a tax grab. In the general election of that year, the New Democratic Party under Roy Romanow promised to reverse the harmonization—this promise likely contributed to their landslide victory. Saskatchewan's NDP government did not propose re-harmonizing the sales taxes while in office, although they did significantly increase the number of items covered by their own sales tax during their time in power.

As of 2009, the HST remains in effect in the three Atlantic provinces where it was first introduced, although all three provinces have elected Progressive Conservative governments since that time. The other provinces continue to have separate GST and PST taxes (except Alberta, which has no PST). Among other problems, different legislation at the federal and provincial levels means that some goods are subject to GST but not PST or vice versa, and a single tax cannot cover such a situation. To make matters more confusing, Quebec (7.5%) and Prince Edward Island (10%) charge their PSTs on the GST.

Although simplifying sales tax collection benefits both the federal and provincial governments and reduces businesses' administrative tax-collecting burden, disputes over what supplies should be taxed mean that the remaining un-harmonized provinces are loath to give up their legislative power to determine what goods should be subject to PST.

Removed the following because it had no citations (if there are studies please do add it back citing them):96.49.96.182 (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence from numerous studies shows that harmonization raises business investment and that PST-type taxes slow down provincial growth

citations needed[edit]

I removed the following sentences beccause the original authors have not included citations. I'll see what I can find to back them up and reinsert them.--Pdelongchamp (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On December 16, 2009, the HST has legislation has passed 3rd reading on the provinicial level and received Royal Assent. Two days later, HST became a reality as Ottawa followed suit.[citation needed]

The tax allows Small business owners to claim the entire 13% of the HST compared to just the 5% GST before making them pay the remaining 8% PST on capital costs.[citation needed]

Ontario Centric Article[edit]

The structure section of this article reads as though there haven't been 3 provinces with HST for over 10 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.85.73 (talk) 02:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Burden On The Poor[edit]

"have accompanied the change with a reduction in income taxes, and instituted direct transfer payments (refundable tax credits) to lower-income groups, resulting in lower tax burdens on the poor"

1. If you do not receive a refundable tax credit for whatever reason, or if you do not get a tax credit, then this represents a TAX increase. There are many items which are now more expensive for people who do not receive these. The claim that it results in a lower tax burden on the poor must be questioned. With a quick calculation, I can find $100 more every year in costs due to this tax. And that's just for one item! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.162.167 (talk) 03:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


reference #2 CD Howe[edit]

This is of questionable value, it points to a newspaper article and not to source material. There is no support for the argument and declarations do not suffice. Pzzp (talk) 16:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you look at the article you will see that is is an op-ed written by Ben Dachis and Alexandre Laurin, who are policy analysts at the C.D. Howe Institute. The article is also from the C.D. Howe Institute's website.Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 23:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Affected items[edit]

It is not necessary to have a list of 20-25 items that are affected by the HST as Wikipedia isn't a directory. The current prose that exists is sufficient. Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 04:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review the page history and you will notice that I did not initially add these items. R.J.Hexter (talk) 04:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as how this list is not unnecessary, I won't revert your last edit. However, I don't approve of the addition of unreliable or biased sources in the second paragraph. The reason why I initially removed the source there was b/c it had nothing to do with the HST and ever since then there have been better but still unreasonable sources inserted there. R.J.Hexter (talk) 04:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

"For many people, the HST appears to be a tax grab, especially as for many larger expenditures the effect of the HST is not a harmonization of federal and provincial taxes, but rather an introduction of a new tax given that these expenditures were not formerly taxed by the respective province."

This edit is clearly meant to cast the subject in a negative point of view and should be removed.Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 04:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, look in the history and you will notice that I did not add this. I only reinstated it because very similar text was sourced (as redundant as that sounds) and somebody removed it without augmenting why it's not neutral. The very same can be said about some pro-HST portions of the article. R.J.Hexter (talk) 04:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV sources Re: burden on the poor[edit]

I am not in the least bit satisfied by any of the three "third-party" sources in the second paragraph. The first source uses gov't numbers, the second one doesn't even suggest that the tax credit will outweigh the tax itself (it only states that there is a $300 benefit which is negligible), and the third source is based on a report that wasn't even released at the time the source was printed. These sources are simply not reliable and they should not be added until there is a clear explanation of why they should be there. I did not remove the text and I put a citation needed tag, meaning that fair sources are welcome. So, keep in mind that I am not doing this based on my opinion, but rather b/c the references need to be made clear and simple. R.J.Hexter (talk) 04:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added two, non governmental, non-partisan sources. Two quotes I'd like to specifically point out.
"HST critics further warn that the reform will unduly burden the poor, but this fear is unfounded. Like the GST that it mimics, the HST will not be applied to basic foodstuffs or residential rents-the largest components in poorer households' budgets. HST rebates to food processors, distributors and retailers should lead to reduced grocery prices. Additionally, the province will provide refundable tax credits to low- and moderate-income households similar to the existing GST credits. Claiming B.C.'s HST credits will entail no extra paperwork, and the two credits will be paid jointly based on the taxfiler's income. Many poor people will actually come out ahead from the HST reform."
"Poor families, those with incomes below the Low Income Cut Off (after-tax), come out ahead by around $200, while non-poor families will lose only about $60 per year on average."
The First quote is from Jon Kesselman, the Canada Research Chair in Public Finance with the Graduate Public Policy Program at Simon Fraser University. and the second is from a report by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Since you seem not to trust government sources for some reason, I believe that these should do.Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think it's pretty clear why government sources with respect to how gov't implemented taxes will affect ppl shouldn't be quotable. Having said that, these sources are more reliable and I will not dispute with them. R.J.Hexter (talk) 03:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citations do not support comments in Background[edit]

The statements "The implementation in eastern provinces demonstrated that consumer prices fall after the change to a harmonized sales tax.[2] The Martin task force found that “in Atlantic Canada prices on goods fell when they harmonized the sales tax.[16]" are not supported by data in the cited documents. I am unable to find data that supports these statements. Opentag (talk) 01:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citations do not support assertions made in article.[edit]

The following assertions:

Most economists support the change from a cascade tax to a value added tax[7][8][9] and studies have shown that the national and provincial governments have succeeded in keeping the change to a value added tax revenue neutral.[2][10][11][12]

are not supported by any of the citations. [7][8] and [9] are news service stories. Only [8] is still avaialable and does not reference a single economist. None of [2][10][11] or [12] are studies. [2] is an op-ed piece written by CD Howe staffers as has already been referenced by others. [10][11]and [12] are news service reports. If there are studies, they need to be cited. If economists have made assertions about tax properties, these need to be cited. As it stands the current sentence is an assertion that is misleading to a lay-reader as it pretends to cite sources that do not support the claim. It should be removed. MagisterL (talk) 18:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simple table[edit]

I was really just looking for a simple table that shows the HST rates across Canada. I'm surprised not to find it. 24.57.210.141 (talk) 03:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion - I've added a simple table in the "Jurisdiction" section. I've also added a note to the top of the article referring back to the main "Sales Taxes in Canada" page, which contains the GST, PST and HST rates for all the provinces and territories. Mojo87 (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed this and made a bit of a change to roll this together with the "Collection" section. Both sections were short and I think it makes sense this way without being too confusing. I added a note that the 5% GST applies everywhere that HST doesn't, but I didn't add this to the table because I thought it would be awkward. If my change makes things unclear then let's discuss how to fix it. Ivanvector (talk) 14:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Harmonized sales tax/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==WP Tax Class==

Stub class because only one section.EECavazos 19:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

==WP Tax Priority== Mid priority because important tax within one country, could go to high classification.EECavazos 19:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Top priority. It's being sourced by blogs and used for research. --Pdelongchamp (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 11:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC). Substituted at 17:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Harmonized sales tax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harmonized_sales_tax&oldid=1199688936"