GST - Should it be raised?
- Thread starter Goober
- Start date
Excise tax, business tax, income tax, licensing, permits, etc etc all add to the costs as they move through the system.
Gotta disagree, while most companies are not 'manufacturers', any company 'consumes' something even if it's as trivial as the coffee machine... Drill down into the expenses of a consulting entity and you'll see that there is a substantial amount of GST that is paid.
How about gvt consumerism? Does that ever factor into your calculations?
VATs are good for transparency though.
Governments dealing with private institutions?
It depends on the institution and how much they forsake a common goal for profit.
I see your point and do agree... One of the catch-22's I mentioned to Durka comes in the form of the cost of living.. It's naive to think that you can source labour for an amount that is not sufficient to deal with the cost of living, however, that is also balanced out with the ability of your competitors to use that variable to their advantage.
The price-line you speak of can be best described as the difference between profitability and non-profitability. Measure this sensitivity variable against the existing investment inventory out there (comparing risk profiles, ROI, etc) and you begin to observe the appetite for where the capital will prefer to invest (not just in a company, but in regions as well).
It's a mugs game to say the least.
If you're advocating for replacing income tax (or portion thereof) with a VAT, then I'm all for it... If, on the other hand, you're suggesting adding another tax onto the heap, tehn I suggest that it will have nothing but a negative impact.
You're somehow have it in your mind that the word 'profit' is a bad word... Profits and revenues are what drives the tax base that pays for all of the common gvt goods/services.. Surely you don't believe that these services are somehow free?
Profit is bad if it's stagnant existence causes unnecessary harm to others.
So, for instance, if a company produces a high profit, but does not give salary raises to members who have actually performed well within the organization and deserve additional compensation.
Absolutely...........................but it also has to be balanced with profits to the shareholders. Some companies are supported by our pensions, if the pensions aren't profitting the money is going to go elsewhere! :smile:
I hear that losses are bad too and lead to starvation
So, for instance, if a company generates a loss, but gave raises earlier that year to members that didn't preform, does the company have the ability to clawback those raises?
If a company generates a loss, then the primary motivator for that loss should take the biggest cut in pay, followed by others responsible in proportion to the degree that they were responsible for the loss. This would mean that if a CEO was the most responsible, they should take the biggest cut in pay in order to at least make an attempt to sustain the organization.
These cuts would of course, be secondary to any greater loss inflicted on the public, such as environmental harm or the pain and suffering of innocent parties.
That works perfectly until you study it a bit. What if those most responsible for the loss are a bunch of Dog F****rs being paid minimum wage?
You would have to show how each member of the organization contributed to the loss of the company and the proportional degree of profit to the organization they could have potentially contributed.
If they are already hitting minimum wage, then the cuts have to be made somewhere else.
Last edited:
Problem with the govt, who is to say they won't just raise the GST and not lower income taxes accordingly? Or if they do, not just hike them back up in a couple years.
So,some of you are against the govt setting the min.wage,well riddle me this,if the govt doesn't, who will ?Not everyone has a big union to get them stupid sruff like viagra and gym memberships.Out in the real world you may have to bluff,threaten to quit if you don't get another twenry five cents,very few small outfits regularly volunteer to increase wages.BUT no business has any compulsion about raising prices.
I'm trying to make sense of this post, having a hard time. Our local newspaper three times a week is loaded with probably forty flyers, expounding on their lowered prices, so I would doubt that most businesses have no compunction about raising prices. I agree that some prices are out of control, some on those products mainly purchased by wealthy people. Just heard on the news that 17% of people in British Columbia "can't afford" prescription drugs. The burning question (to me) is perhaps some of these people have set the priority wrong for prescription drugs. How much is unnecessary "fat" in gov't. costing each citizen in Canada? I'll bet it's at least $25 a month. There would be prescription drugs for some people.
They are known to do stuff like that. One thought has just struck me. How about changing most aspects of Fed. and Prov. Gov't over to the municipalities? I'll bet the justice system would be much better run. The operation of most things would be more in tune with local economics and the wants and needs of the local citizens, not what some figure head in Ottawa thinks is good for us!
Can't have it both ways bud, but let's run with your plan anyways.
Assume that the problem is linked to a department (and/or individuals within), would it not be fair to hold that dept responsible and deny them any raises until such time the 'profits' are replaced?
You would have to have a base standard for all employees of a certain job type. This standard would hopefully reflect a wage that would reasonably allow that party live within their means.
If someone is not performing to the standard that was agreed upon for the amount paid, then they might be terminated and replaced.
In the case of a loss, you would have to determine the degree with which their performance affected that loss. You would also have to find a way to appropriately determine any capability they would have had to provide revenue for the company. It could be that a loss or profit was entirely based on the luck of the industry or some temporary trend.
It could be that not only would they have delayed salary raises, but they should also receive a salary decrease if they do not maintain an acceptable standard of quality. Let's keep in mind here, that while an individual's performance can be poor, the degree to which it contributes to a loss or profit is different depending on the industry, their role and their position in the organization.
For most cases, the variance of a CEO's salary is much greater than most other members. They should stand to profit or lose the most if the ship starts to sink.
It might not get that complicated, the owner might just say "F - it, you're all fired". :lol:
Almost all deductions are stupid. A consumption tax is the only was to go.
The poor don't vote.