Same-Tax Union - Espousing a lower, rev.neutral Harmonized Tax vs Opposing the "inevitable

Same-Tax Union - treat everything the same.

If we followed this policy on the "scared institution" of Marriage ... why exempt some "sacred cow" goods and/or services?

It only boost the (revenue-neutral) rate of taxation on the non-exempt G's & S's!

ie if we're convinced to go the Value-added "way" - go all the way.

Tax every Good & every Service - but at a much lower rate.

Part 2

A posting of a letter to TREB earlier this year.
Originally sent to my trade Association (Toronto Real Estate Board) -

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

If "revenue neutrality" is one of the claims made to encourage consumer acceptance of Harmonization, then espouse a lower initial implementation rate that WILL BE revenue neutral.

If others are too entrenched in their oppose-at-all-costs campaigns, then perhaps a independent view from (Toronto Real Estate Board) TREB, taking a leadership role on this logical "lower rate=revenue neutral" idea will show TREB has thought things through from the consumers standpoint.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________


Dear Tom,
cc. Maureen, TREB Govt. & Public Relations depts,


Your recent column follows the Real Estate Industry's policy of opposition to the imposition of the Harmonized 13% value-added tax citing various increased costs for consumers and some businesses as a rationale.

I fully agree that more and higher levels of taxation are NOT to be supported and/or encouraged, but .... given that the GST (a value-added tax) IS a current reality; and given that province-by-province harmonization of PST's and the GST is a soon-to-be-complete reality and given that most economists agree that a value-added tax is "better" than a "cascading & compounding" one:

May I recommend a switch in the focus of TREB's position within consulations on harmonization to opposition to the simple-arithmetic 13% RATE of the tax and not the concept itself.

To me, the expanded bundle of taxed goods and services should be the greatest argument for reducing the rate from the 5+8=13 to some justifiable lower percentage.

What lower percentage? Please review the recent TDCandaTrust report on Harmonization attached

If indeed "revenue neutrality" is one of the claims made by the Ontari-ari-ario Treasury's campaign to encourage consumer acceptance of Harmonization (in addition to the loss-leader, acceptance-buying, up-front rebates/transition pymnts), then take TD's NET-NET 1.5% impact number and espouse an initial implementation rate of 11.5% (see Highlights Pg 1 box and calculations leading to that conclusion reached on pg 5)

If CREA/OREA & the New Home Associations are too entrenched in their oppose-at-all-costs campaigns, then perhaps a independent view from TREB, taking a leadership role on this logical "lower rate=revenue neutral" idea will show TREB has thought things through from the consumers standpoint and has the political smarts to realize that helping the gov't of the day get this "necessary/inevitable" tax policy accepted will produce opportunities for future independent access to the Pink Palace's inner sanctums.Truly,

rce

-- Robert Ede

There is no shame is turning back, when you discover you're on the wrong path.

P.S.
Oct 18/09 - Same Tax Union

Why shouldn't ALL goods and services be tax the same?

BUT .... with a much lower rate on this much wider base.

ADDENDUM

National Post -T Corcoran
There's no logic in HST politics