Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo
But what if the government decides that my car dealership is entitled to a tax break but your bicycle shop is not. Though it's not technically a subsidy, there is no doubt that I'm getting an advantage over you whatever you want to call it.
So, what you're saying is that no industry should get any kind of differential tax treatment at all?
Fine by me, but you probably won't like the fallout from that decision.
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoSo likewise if the petrol industry gets a tax cut that the bicycle industry does not get, are you not essentially encouraging petrol consumption at the expense of the bicycle industry? Why not give the tax break to all industries equally?
What you're not taking into consideration is the cost of doing business in each industry.
Using your bike example, it would be preferable to be the bike retailer, but you'd be silly to be a manufacturer because you're taking on more risk in manufacturing than you are just distributing.
That said, everyone will strive to distribute (some kind of product) and no one will want to manufacture, unless there are only a few mfgrs in which case they have a virtual monopoly.
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoWhy in the world would you want to keep taxes at the retail level if we were to increase royalties on gas? Would the idea not be to shift taxes from one to the other and not just add one tax to the other?
That's the way it is right now Machjo, they aren't 'shifting' taxes, they pile them on top of each other..... Look into it.
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoWe do need tax revenue to pay off the federal debt though.
Yup... That free healthcare gets pretty expensive after a while.
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoAlso, I would consider royalties on resources to be more fair than GST since it's more user-pay for those who use the nation's resources.
Everyone uses the 'Nation's resources' Machjo. But in the end, why does oil/gas pay a provincial royalty of up 40% (which then becomes a basis for equalization btw) and mining, forestry, agri or even finance or the services sector don't pay at all (or a much smaller amount)?
I mean, the agri sector uses the 'Nation's land' to grow wheat, which in turns consumes the 'Nation's fertilizers and minerals' let alone the 'Nation's water'... Can't we consider that wheat to be the 'Nation's food'?
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossThe bike industry is definitely a much lower priority than our energy sector.
Yes, and that's reflected in not only the demand and necessity for bikes as compared to oil/gas, but also in the number of people employed by the bike industry as compared to the energy sector.
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossThe hope is that giving tax breaks to sectors that fuel the economy will actually create economic growth.
Whereas punishing those sectors has been a really successful to date.
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossWe're quickly realizing that CEOs are laughing all the way to their own piggy banks instead.
Your paranoia is getting the better of you.
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoThe problem though is that resources are more finite, so one would think we would want to encourage a more responsible use of them.
Fine, leave all natural resources related to energy and mining in the ground. Outlaw their use entirely... Save 'em for a rainy day.
