Mission improbable? Economists want GST charged on food
saturn_656 @ Sat Feb 25, 2012 11:51 am
Lemmy Lemmy:
Yup. But given where gasoline prices are headed, we're likely not going to be hearing so much about food prices over the next little while.
Don't get me started on gas.
Caelon @ Sat Feb 25, 2012 12:10 pm
As the article points out broad based taxes with few or no exemptions are easy to administer and difficult to escape. We look at essentials like food as sacred tax exempt cows that if taxed would have a greater impact on the poor than the rich. As a percentage of income that is definitely true as total collected tax it is incorrect. All of us at some point in our history had to live frugally. Look at grocery baskets in the store. The more affluent buy steaks and the more frugal buy less meat and cheaper cuts. On a cost per meal the poor spend a lot less. So a universal consumptive tax does collect more tax dollars from the rich than the poor.
As Lemmy pointed out there are other mechanisms such as tax rebates to compensate the low income people from the effect of the tax. In the past this has been a once a year catch up (tax filing rebate time) which is an enforced savings program. For individuals and families living close to the edge a 5% to 15% increase on their food bill could be the straw that breaks the camels back. A program that has monthly compensation as opposed to annual might alleviate the stress.
New government programs tend to have flaws when implemented that get corrected or at least modified over time. Implementing a 4 or 5% across the board VAT is not as simple as it sounds and I would expect the social safety net side of the equation would need a fair bit of tweaking after implementation to address the conerns of low income individuals.
andyt @ Sat Feb 25, 2012 12:31 pm
People who don't file income tax, especially the homeless would not get the rebates.
But over all, I say go for as long as low income are rebated. AFAIK, the rebates now are mailed out 3 or 4 times a year, so that's not too bad. Maybe raise the rebate qualifying income a bit too, since this would hurt people just over the current maximum. The other point they make is that the money can be put towards tax reductions in other places - maybe use it to raise the basic tax exemption.
Yogi @ Sat Feb 25, 2012 1:03 pm
andyt andyt:
People who don't file income tax, especially the homeless would not get the rebates.
But over all, I say go for as long as low income are rebated. AFAIK, the rebates now are mailed out 3 or 4 times a year, so that's not too bad. Maybe raise the rebate qualifying income a bit too, since this would hurt people just over the current maximum. The other point they make is that the money can be put towards tax reductions in other places - maybe use it to raise the basic tax exemption.
But over all, I say go for as long as low income are rebated. AFAIK, the rebates now are mailed out 3 or 4 times a year, so that's not too bad. Maybe raise the rebate qualifying income a bit too, since this would hurt people just over the current maximum. The other point they make is that the money can be put towards tax reductions in other places - maybe use it to raise the basic tax exemption.
As noted, but in actuallity the 'rebate idea' would be of little help. Unless of course, at point of purchase one could say " Make a note of the Gauge and Screw Tax in that little book there beside the till, and I'll pay the 5% when my rebate cheque comes in in a couple of months"!
andyt @ Sat Feb 25, 2012 1:45 pm
Yogi, what are you talking about? They currently have a rebate in place. It kicks in if your earnings are below a certain level and is sent out several times a year. Supposedly low income people come out ahead on the deal, ie they get more back than they pay in taxes. At least that was the claim in BC with the HST.
Yogi @ Sat Feb 25, 2012 2:06 pm
andyt andyt:
Yogi, what are you talking about? They currently have a rebate in place. It kicks in if your earnings are below a certain level and is sent out several times a year. Supposedly low income people come out ahead on the deal, ie they get more back than they pay in taxes. At least that was the claim in BC with the HST.
What you are failing to see is the fact that the 5% must be paid at point of purchase. The vast majority of low income folks just don't have any extra coins. They are already juggling their daily expenses, trying to figure out which bill/s get paid and which are just going to have to 'slide'.
'If I have to depend on the food bank to top up my groceries today, what good is a rebate cheque sent out 3 mos from now going to do me?
andyt @ Sat Feb 25, 2012 2:16 pm
OK, I get you. But they'd only have to suffer thru for 3 months it takes for the first larger check to arrive. After that, as long as they budget that money properly it all works out.
But this is the 21st century. Maybe the govt could sent out debit cards where the rebate is deposited in the account every month. Or, since the checks will be sent out even if that family all of a sudden finds a high paying job (ie until next time taxes are filed) just send it all out in one shot as soon as people file their taxes.
Yogi @ Sat Feb 25, 2012 2:24 pm
andyt andyt:
OK, I get you. But they'd only have to suffer thru for 3 months it takes for the first larger check to arrive. After that, as long as they budget that money properly it all works out.
But this is the 21st century. Maybe the govt could sent out debit cards where the rebate is deposited in the account every month. Or, since the checks will be sent out even if that family all of a sudden finds a high paying job (ie until next time taxes are filed) just send it all out in one shot as soon as people file their taxes.
But this is the 21st century. Maybe the govt could sent out debit cards where the rebate is deposited in the account every month. Or, since the checks will be sent out even if that family all of a sudden finds a high paying job (ie until next time taxes are filed) just send it all out in one shot as soon as people file their taxes.
I still don't agree with that. In fact what I would propose would be that the GST be removed from all essential items. Another fact is that no level of govt in Canada needs to raise taxes. Rather, THEY need to learn how to budget what they are already getting!
andyt @ Sat Feb 25, 2012 2:32 pm
Well, Lemmy says it's a good idea. And the authors point out that other taxes could be reduced to keep govt revenues the same.
I think most govts need to raise taxes to continue to provide the kind of services we've come to expect. Cuts to education/training and healthcare just make no sense for instance. Lot's of people on this forum are all for increased military spending and policing. Transit in Vancouver is desperate for money. Etc.
peck420 @ Sat Feb 25, 2012 3:39 pm
andyt andyt:
I think most govts need to raise taxes to continue to provide the kind of services we've come to expect.
Call me when there isn't multiple millions missing every year that the gooberment can not account for.
Small potatoes? Maybe.
andyt @ Sat Feb 25, 2012 3:57 pm
You said it yourself, so I don't think I have to call you.
PimpBrewski123 @ Sat Feb 25, 2012 4:00 pm
Even if they tax this, they are gonna end up spending it elsewhere.
Gov't on any level, that means municipal, provincial or federal, should be more concerned about spending cuts instead of wanting to add or increase taxes.