Conservatives wish to do away with retail sales tax

The federal government has decided that while the fiscal imbalance is important to discuss, tax harmonization is a very important area of future discussion. Harper will reach for the goal partially accomplished by the previous liberal government: elimination of retail sales tax.

"provincial retail sales taxes continue to be collected in five provinces. These taxes result in inefficient and uncompetitive forms of taxation—notably the taxation of business inputs and exports—as well as increased administration and compliance costs for both business and government" - Restoring Fiscal Balance Department of Finance Paper Page 60

Agreements were reached with Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, on operating a combined value added tax, or VAT. In Quebec this is knows as QST & GST, while in other provinces it is known as the HST (Harmonized sales tax).

All other provinces with the exception being Alberta (which collects no retail or value added tax) collect PST (provincial sales tax) which is a form of retail sales tax (RST).

Move VAT and RST are forms of ad valorem tax, a tax with a rate given as a proportion of the price. Ad valorem taxes, have a measure of tax incidence that is determined by the elasticities of supply and demand. Sales taxes are borne by the consumer in proportion to consumption expenditures.

The GST, HST, QST are a VAT which has a broad base of goods and services, while the PST is a RST which usually exempts many goods and services. The one problem with RST's is the problem of double taxation. Some goods that could be seen as consumer goods are bought to be resold. These goods, which the business person has already paid RST on, is then resold with RST being applied once again. (If a good was $100, purchased for $110 with RST, then resold at $110, the final price would be $121, with a tax total of $121) This leads to the difficulty in administration of having breaucrats deciding what is a consumer product, and what is a industrial products. It also distorts the market for services, inducing extra demands, as it is cheaper to higher services, than to purchase a labour saving device (which has RST). RST's can be a major drag on productivity. The RST system has a few advantages, being that it is easier to understand than the VAT, and has fewer points of collection.

A VAT has the advantages of avoiding tax cascading, and the taxation of goods used as imputs in the production of other goods.


Explaining the GST, HST, QST:

The tax is a 7% charge on the sale of all goods and services, except certain essentials such as food, residential rent, and medical services, and certain services such as financial services. The tax is levied on each sale. Businesses that purchase goods and services as inputs can claim "input tax credits", i.e., in general terms, they deduct from the amount of GST they have collected the amount of GST that they have paid. This avoids "cascading", i.e., the application of the GST on the same good or service several times as it passes from business to business on its way to the final consumer. In this way, the tax is effectively borne by the final consumer. Exported goods are exempt, while individuals with low incomes can receive a GST rebate calculated in conjunction with their income tax.

Untaxed items

The tax is a 7% charge on all goods and services except certain items that are either "exempt" or "zero-rated":

* For tax-free — i.e., "zero-rated" — sales, vendors do not charge GST. However, they are still able to recover any GST paid on purchases used in making the tax-free good or service. This effectively remove all tax from these goods and services.
o Tax-free items include basic groceries, prescription drugs and medical devices. Exports are also zero-rated.

* For tax-exempt sales, vendors do not charge tax on their sales. By the same token, however, they are not entitled to credits for the GST paid on inputs bought for the purposes of making the exempt good or service. Tax-exempt items include residential rents, health and dental care, educational services, day-care services, legal aid services and financial services.

*


What the government is doing:

"The Government is also proposing to discuss ideas for further
harmonization of sales taxes in Canada. Harmonized value-added taxes
are already in place in Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and
New Brunswick—and Quebec administers a provincial value-added tax,
as well as collecting the GST on behalf of the federal government.
But separate provincial retail sales taxes continue to be collected in five
provinces. These taxes result in inefficient and uncompetitive forms of
taxation—notably the taxation of business inputs and exports—as
well as increased administration and compliance costs for both business
and government."



I believe this can only result in gains for Canadians. with the GST being reduced to 5% and administrative cost savings, the Ontario rate of 15% could soon be 11 or 12%. Exports will benifit, and productivity will hopefully begin to play catch up after being a laygard on Canada's financial record for many years.

Peacekeeping & Darfur

Why the term needs to be mostly scrapped in the modern context.

Peacekeeping by definition requires in place ceasefires and the consent of all the parties in conflict to be implemented. This works very well in conflicts which are between states, such as Israel/Syria in the Golan Heights, and the conflict in Cyprus.

In many cases where individuals wish peacekeepers to be deployed, there is no peace to keep.
Darfur for example would not be conventional peacekeeping. Some of the rebel groups on each side on the conflict have refused to sign the peaceagreement.

Arguments for Deploying a UN force to Darfur

* UN Troops will be able to stop attacks against Refugees - Wrong, as Peacekeeping forces are not deployed with rules of engagement that include responsibility to protect (example: Rwanda)
* UN Troops will be able to force peace among remaining factions - Wrong, as force is imposed by an outside power, the only effect will be to unite the factions in opposition to UN Forces (example: Somalia)
* UN Mission will be less risky than Afghanistan - Dubious, two rebel groups have rejected the agreement, and Sudan's ability to reign in the Janjaweed is unproven. Protesters in refugee Camps recently attacked UN's top humanitarian official, Jan Egeland, his interpreter, and killed an interpreter deployed with the African Union. Osama bin Laden has called for the formation of a Muslim Liberation Army or Mujahaden to remove infidels from Sudan
* We have a responsibility to protect, to prevent genocide - This is problably the best argument for going. However, this argument can be attacked for perpetuating a paternalistic ideal of colonialism's "white man's burden", citing the UN Charter's call for a global village and adoption of notions employed by the west as tactics to justify intervention throughout the globe for the purpose of "keeping the peace".
* Darfur requires just a handful of UN Troops (Western Troops) which are up to a standard to actually do something about the conflict - This argument seems to be a good one, but lacks substance. African Union Troops with helicopters and armoured personell carriers have been unable to prevents continued conflict. Darfur is the size of France, is sparsely populated, and lacks available supplies of water. The amount of troops to cover such an area would be enormous. United Nations Troops would be contained by rules of engagement stricter than African Union Troops. This is because UN Troops would be peace keepers.

The NDP's position in Darfur is simplistic (deploy troops, stop killing). It seems logical. A mission of the size and scope needed in Darfur would likely be similar to the Somalia deployment. I remember that didn't go well. I will have to search Hansard to try to find the call by the NDP to pull Canadian forces out, and the similar call to put forces in a year or two before.

The Darfur conflict is reflected in multiple prisms. The most commonly cited is Arab and Black. Another is Muslim and Christian. I would say the most fundamental difference inbetween the two groups fighting(this is not to say there are only one group on each side), is that one side is nomadic herders, and one side is subsistent farmers.

These two groups (farmers vs herders) will always have a fundamental conflict unless agreements are made to share land, or divide land.

The best way to solve this problem is to actively support refugees leaving the conflict zone, along with "strong and effective measures" diplomatic language for sanctions. a United Nations force will be no more effective than an African Union force if it is to be deployed under the same circumstances.

As an internal matter for Sudan, the most appropriate action to take are actions which pressure the Sudanese government to solve the problem in a way acceptable to the international community. When there is a peace to keep, it will be appropriate to deploy a peace monitoring mission, much like the United Nations Mission in the Sudan (where a force has been deployed after a peace agreement).

Columnists has said that the NDP has a large pacifist contingent. http://www.ottawasun.com/News/Co...20/ 1590373.html
The deflection of the Afghanistan mission by the smokescreen of darfur is just a deception by the isolationist NDP which packs up when the going gets tough.

The Darfur conflict has been going on since 2003. If the NDP really cared, where were they calling for sanctions after resolutions passed in 2004. This issue is just popular at the moment, and they are using it as a distraction. Darfur may be an issue, but true problem in Africa is the Great Lakes War surrounding Zaire/DR Congo. Six million hgave died in that conflict. Where is the NDP on that issue.