I’m Trying To Learn About BC’s Harmonized Sales Tax

July 30th, 2009, 16 Comments »

I have a confession to make. Until a few days ago, when I was invited to this Facebook group protesting the Harmonized Sales Tax (HST), I had no idea what it was. In case you’re unclear as I was, the HST combines the Provincial Sales Tax (PST, at 7%) and Goods and Services Tax (GST, at 5%) into one 12% tax. Our province plans to implement the tax on July 1, 2010.

According to Wikipedia, three other provinces have a harmonized tax: New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia. Ontario recently announced that they’d be merging their PST and GST on July 1, 2010 as well.

I thought I’d try to dig up the arguments for and against such a move:

Arguments for the HST

These come from the BC’s government’s HST site:

  • “Eliminating the PST and moving to an HST will remove a significant tax burden on businesses. The PST is an outdated, complex and inefficient tax paid by both consumers and businesses.”
  • Also from the government site: “A 2007 C.D. Howe Report written by Professor Michael Smart of the University of Toronto showed that, in the three Atlantic provinces who adopted HST, per capita investment rose by more than 11 per cent, total investment in machinery and equipment increased by over 12 per cent annually and consumer prices fell after the 1997 reforms.”
  • “With one tax rate, one substantially harmonized tax base, and one set of administrative rules instead of the duplication that currently exists, compliance costs for British Columbia businesses is expected to be reduced by about $150 million annually.”
  • “Thanks to sales tax reform, British Columbia’s overall marginal effective tax rate (METR) on new business investment will be reduced by almost 11 percentage points, a decrease of roughly 40 per cent, which will encourage new investment.”
  • From other sources:

  • From a Globe and Mail article, citing Premier Campbell: “the shift [is a] major cost savings for business, which will be able to claim HST rebates in virtually all cases”.
  • Again from the Globe: “The federal government will pay $1.6-billion to B.C. for transition costs, an amount that far outstrips the actual expenses of adopting the harmonized tax.”
  • From CTV.ca: “TD Bank economist Pascal Gauthier said studies show a harmonized tax does create lower prices for consumers down the road.”

Arguments Against the HST

From the aforementioned Globe and Mail article:

  • “But the savings for business will become new costs for consumers…A slew of goods and services formerly not subject to the PST will fall under the umbrella of the new combined tax, including hair cuts, restaurant meals – and far larger expenditures such as new homes.”
  • “In the Lower Mainland, where prices can easily top seven digits, buyers could end up paying significantly larger tax bills; a new $700,000 home would incur an extra $18,000 in sales tax, according to the B.C. finance ministry. “
  • “B.C. finance ministry officials pointed to a 2007 study from the University of Toronto. That study found that overall consumer prices fell after harmonization, but that prices rose for shelter, clothing and footwear, making the changeover “slightly regressive.” In other words, lower income consumers were affected more than those with higher incomes.”
  • NDP finance critic Bruce Ralston quoted on CTV.ca: “The biggest concern I have is that, just at a time when we are trying to come out of a recession, is this the right time to make people pay more tax for ordinary services people buy as part of their daily lives?”
  • From other sources:

  • From the Vancouver Sun: “‘The news is especially grim for the restaurant industry, which is already seeing business down because of the drop in tourism’, said Mark von Schellwitz, regional vice-president for the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association…’That’s going to cost our industry in B.C. annually $750 million.’”
  • From a Bill Tieleman editorial in The Tyee: “So who benefits? Big business. That’s why the B.C. Business Council, the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters and a host of other business groups are supporting the tax. The HST will transfer $1.9 billion from individuals and give that money to big business.”
  • Also from The Tyee: “The HST is a highly regressive tax. That is, it disproportionately impacts lower income earners because far more of their limited income will be spent paying the tax than higher income earners.”

Conclusions

I’m no economist. The few economists’ opinions I could find on harmonized taxes seemed to be “short term pain, long term gain”. While the HST will be tax deductible (where the PST was not), businesses are likely to pass on costs to consumers. That will, of course, have the greatest impact on those earning the least.

There seems to be no question that it’s a business-friendly tax. I did want to question Mr. Tieleman’s assertion that it strictly benefited big business. The Sun quotes Brian Bonney, the director of provincial affairs in B.C for the Canadian Federation of Independent Business:

On the plus side will be the reduction of paperwork and the ability to deduct input credits, which will both have a “massive” impact on small businesses, he said. “Overall, this is a positive thing,” Bonney said. “But I think there are definitely some sectors in the economy that are not going to be happy with this announcement.”

That suggests that small businesses aren’t unilaterally opposed to the tax.

So, what do you think? Through the history of the modern world, taxes have gone up. Assuming that taxes will continue to go up, is this the sort of tax you’d prefer?

16 Comments »

The Five Dollar Music Tax Ought to Be Voluntary

March 28th, 2008, 9 Comments »

Everybody seems to be up in arms over the music industry’s new proposal for a new American tax to save their industry. The always-raging Michael Arrington leads the charge:

Good musicians will always find a way to make money. Others may have to follow their passion as a hobby and (shudder) get a day job to pay the bills. But if a music tax is put in place, that innovation will die, and with guaranteed revenues and profits, the need to innovate, market and compete will also die. A music tax is a sure fire way to destroy an industry that is just beginning to really blossom.

The tax would allegedly be $5/month, charged by all participating ISPs. I imagine that it would become buried in your monthly internet bill, much like the private copying levy is embedded into the price of Canadian iPods, hard drives and recordable media. While technically you might be able to seek out an ISP that isn’t participating in the program, the industry would goad, bribe, sweet talk or sue dissenting ISPs into a more agreeable stance.

As Arrington points out in a subsequent post, the plan is basically a “covenant not to sue anyone who pays the fee”.

The idea of a $5 a month tax isn’t new. In fact, the Electronic Frontier Foundation proposed a very similar approach three years ago. The only difference is that their levy would be voluntary:

The concept is simple: the music industry forms a collecting society, which then offers file-sharing music fans the opportunity to “get legit” in exchange for a reasonable regular payment, say $5 per month. So long as they pay, the fans are free to keep doing what they are going to do anyway—share the music they love using whatever software they like on whatever computer platform they prefer—without fear of lawsuits. The money collected gets divided among rights-holders based on the popularity of their music.

I still think artists ought to be paid for their work (heck, I made a website about it). Would I pay $5 per month to get complete access to all music ever recorded, avoid prosecution and forget about the phrase ‘traffic shaping’? In a heartbeat. I already pay eMusic $15 a month to download 50 songs from a comparatively small archive of 3 million. Such a tax like this would be a discount.

Just as the Canadian levy is applied to a lot of consumers who have never illegally downloaded a song, a de facto mandatory tax will punish the many for the actions of the few. The music industry ought to make this tax voluntary, and take what they can get.

9 Comments »