Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Tieleman - unspinning the disastrous HST

Bill Tieleman with Bill & Lillian Vander Zalm at Fight HST Rally - Vancouver - Saturday September 19, 2009


















Exposing HST myths and misinformation

Bill Tieleman's 24 hours/The Tyee column

September 22, 2009

"I found a lot of the initial anger out there is dissipating as people are getting more information about the tax."

- Finance Minister Colin Hansen, September 19, 2009 on the HST

That's about as believable as the minister's pre-election claim that B.C. would have a $495 million budget deficit. Try $2.8 billion!

So after a great set of 19 Fight HST rallies across the province, including 5,000 people in Vancouver, it's time to expose some of the myths and misinformation being spread about the Harmonized Sales Tax.

[NOTE: You can see my speech in Vancouver - courtesy of AHA Media - on this You Tube clip.]


The TD Bank put out a report on the HST that has been seized on by some as showing the tax won't hurt consumers much and will boost the economy.

A Saturday Globe and Mail editorial states : "Four-tenths of a per cent, the increase that TD Economics predicts in the average consumer-price level as a result of sales-tax harmonization in British Columbia and Ontario, is an acceptable price to pay for greater efficiency and neutrality in Canadian taxation, and greater international competitiveness."

Oh really? Try reading the actual TD analysis: "In B.C., consumers will be subject to a 7 percentage point increase on the tax rate on 21 per cent of their expenditures."

Totally acceptable Globe dudes -- you are too kind!

Or this bit: from the TD analysts: "The tax savings for businesses is lost revenue for the Ontario and BC governments, and the tax revenue needed to support hospitals, schools, and social programs has to come from somewhere. And in this case, it will come from increasing the tax burden on consumers."

Will business really 'pass it on'?

And on what basis does TD Economics still say the HST will help consumers? Try this leap of faith: "There are good reasons to believe the majority of the tax savings by businesses will be passed on to consumers in the form of lower prices."

Oh, right! I remember well how big businesses passed on the benefits of the Goods and Service Tax when it was imposed by Prime Minister Brian Mulroney!

And of course, what's good for big business is good for all of us!

The bitter reality is this: consumers are going to pay an outrageous 7 per cent extra tax on all sorts of goods and services to subsidize the profits of big business.

The HST will add an extra 7 per cent to the cost of restaurant food, new homes, realtor fees, haircuts, gym memberships, airline tickets, massage therapy, bicycles and so many more goods and services that there isn't room to list them.

That means the HST will cost most British Columbians hundreds if not thousands of extra dollars in tax.

And despite paying those extra taxes, not one thin dime from the HST will go to improve health care or education or social programs. Instead it all goes to business tax credits.

If Colin Hansen thinks anger is dissipating he's living in a fool's paradise -- just wait until everyone figures out the HST will really cost them hundreds to thousands of dollars!

So, if by now you're mad enough, join 123,000 people on my NO BC HST protest group on Facebook. And sign up to stop this tax at Fight HST.


PHOTO CREDITS - left - Cassandra; right John Prentice - with thanks!
.

34 comments:

cheryl said...

Boy, a thousand people sure looks like a big crowd :)

Gabriel said...

Bill, you should mention that the big bank economists are in conflict of interest. Do you expect them to criticize a policy that would give tons of money to their employer?

Laila said...

Excerpt from Canadian Press link:

"OTTAWA -- The TD Bank says harmonization of the federal GST with provincial sales taxes in Ontario and British Columbia will result in an immediate and permanent increase in costs for consumers in those provinces.

TD economists Don Drummond and Diana Petramala estimate in a new report that the increase in taxes paid by consumers on goods and services will increase the consumer price index in those two provinces by 0.7 per cent and result in a 0.4 per cent bump in the national inflation rate."

~AND~

"Some of the savings will be pushed through to consumers but not enough to completely offset the increase in consumer prices.."

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/business/hst-will-boost-inflation-td-bank-59833282.html

Doesn't matter how anyone tries to spin this TAX, because the bottom line is that it will hurt everyone at the checkout line, and any positive outcome will be confined to large business and corporations who already make maximum profit.

Colin Hansen was quoted Friday at the Surrey Board of Trade meeting as saying:

""That's not to say every product will be cheaper, but it's safe to say that every product will be cheaper than it would have been without the HST," Hansen said."

( cough..cough.. B.S!)

Sure Colin- I'm keeping this quote handy....when asked if the government would force companies to pass any savings onto customers, he said that customers would go where they find the best price, and that he would leave that to the market.

So tell me, where does that leave small businesses, mom and pop shops and services? They will not be able to compete in any way with large big box stores or services.

This tax comes from the politician who talked repeatedly about how much he cared about small businesses throughout the election, something that was a significant part of his platform.

http://www.canada.com/surreynow/news/story.html?id=436bb27f-31a8-4fe7-9955-ef43b32c0b2b

Gabriel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kam Lee said...

Colin, like his boss, is a lier, a thief, and not a vert nice person. They all dance to the gordo the drunk's music. Get rid of them, better still tar & feather them all!

Anonymous said...

I would have gone to the anti His Shit Tax but the one in Nanaimo was very poorly advertised. Nothing from my wimpy Union. Others I talked to had not heard about it either. CUPE our dictatorial union must get on board.

Anonymous said...

All this public outrage is one thing but with three and half years of legal dictatorship left, our "beloved" premier can do anything he wants.

With Campbell's de facto control of the Courts, the BC Media and the BC "State Security Services" (municipal, regional and federal) we might as well be living in Chile in the 1980s under the rule of General and President of Life Augusto Pinochet.

Throw in all the "special powers" Campbell and his friends will have around security issues for the Campbell 2010 Games and you might as well book your "Bunk at Belsen Camp" right now.

The GREAT SATAN

Kyle said...

Bill,
I am dissapointed by your post and the misinformation you have in fact given. I read the editorial and the TD bank release of the 'facts' or so called anyways. I want to raise your attention to something you may have missed, which is unfortunate now that you have outright accused them of misinformation when in fact it was you...
"Four-tenths of a per cent, the increase that TD Economics predicts in the average consumer-price level as a result of sales-tax harmonization in British Columbia and Ontario, is an acceptable price to pay for greater efficiency and neutrality in Canadian taxation, and greater international competitiveness."
Thats a direct quote, the same as in your article, however, you missed the most IMPORTANT word; AVERAGE. this editorial compares and contrasts both Ontario and BC; it takes the 2 inflation percentages raised by the TD Bank article and then simply calculates their average for the sake of the article.
I would encourage you to re-think your argument for the sake of the people who do read your blog and also note that I will be making the public aware of your misinformation good sir.

Kyle Harms

Trev said...

I first saw this article in "24H," and, while I normally don't feel the need to comment on these things, I feel there is something left unsaid here.

Mr. Tieleman, I believe you quoted the TD analysis of the HST as saying "In B.C., consumers will be subject to a 7 percentage point increase on the tax rate on 21 percent of their expenditures." While I lack experience with economist jargon, I believe that is 7% increase on 21% of the money we spend, correct? That works out to a grand total of a 1.47% increase in how much money we have to spend (0.07*0.21 - remember, percentages are just an easy way to write fractions, so it's not 147% more). Sure, it works out to be a more significant figure when applied to the overall cost of living, but even if you have living expenses at around $20 000/year (forgive me, I'm young, 20 000 is about double my annual expenses), it's less than $300 more. Is that really worth screaming about?

On the other hand, your point that this extra government income will be spent on big business tax credit is worth consideration. Mind telling us where you heard that from?

Don't take that as a challenge - I'm just trying to get the whole picture. I'd also ask TD Economics to explain their "good reasons to believe the majority of tax savings ... will be passed on to consumers", but banks tend to have selective hearing. . .

Angela said...

(Pt 1 of 4)
Bill, you have a somewhat neanderthal view of politics. It's time we moved forward instead of standing still. Part of moving forward means working co-operatively and constructively.

All parties should be working together to find the best way to implement the HST. This means finding compromises on the % as well as what should or shouldn't be exempt, perhaps implementation schedule as well as rebate levels for lower income also to lessen the effect of this regressive tax.

I can't say to what degree the Green Party or others would call for changes to the Liberal proposal but it couldn't be any worse than our current situation. Don't forget that once we remove our confrontational approach to politics, you would also see some NDP people supporting the process and helping bring in HST, but vastly different than the Liberal concept left only to the Liberals to work out.

Of course it also means we must move towards some form of proportional representation so that more than one party has their say in the Legislature.

And with that in mind, let's take a look at your version of reality.
(End Pt 1)

Angela said...

(Pt 2 of 4)
And with that in mind, let's take a look at your version of reality.

"61% of British Columbians who saw it for what it was". That figure is rounded off nicely from the Elections BC figure of 60.92% that voted No.

Here's the problem. I see an estimated total as of Apr 1 of this year that the population of BC is 4,435,344 but only 3,238,737 are eligible to vote (about 73.02%). Of those only 1,651,413 (about 50.99%) voted in the election and even less (49.25%) or 1,595,089 voted in the referendum.

When you put it all together 60.92% of 49.25% of 73.02% of the population of BC voted No or about 21.91%, hell let's call it 22%.

Now if you want to sustain your claim, you'll need to go door-to-door for a bit and get the thoughts of the rest of the population that are uninformed or were misinformed (by the No side).

Your factually challenged reply contained a few more errors.
(End Pt 2)

Angela said...

(Pt 3 of 4)
Your factually challenged reply contained a few more errors.

Huge ridings already work in BC and I don't know that STV can be classified as obscure. Might want to check your dictionary for a definition. I think you'll find no mention of a correlation to inadequacy, merely less well known.

Thanks for the continued confusion on the subject by the way. STV was never confusing to begin with, that was only brought in by the No team with constant misdirection and the odd out and out lie.

But believe me, I am not trying to single you out as the sole cause of this setback (sorry but STV wasn't defeated anymore than FPTP was defeated in 2005 at 42.31% - do you ever get anything right about this issue?).

Obviously the Yes side was as ineffective with their campaign as the No side was effective with their strategy. And both major parties not allowing their candidates to publicly state support for the proposed change, which is indicative of the inherent problem with the current system, had a huge part in diffusing any interest.

Of course, we aren't actually concerned with the referendum results or analysis anymore.
(End Pt 3)

Angela said...

(Pt 4 of 4)
Of course, we aren't actually concerned with the referendum results or analysis anymore.

As you know, it's history. I think we're both over it so really no reason to be taking your advice. We should be talking about the future of HST and the future of PR.

I wish you all the best with your Recall and Initiative efforts. I won't personally sign any of the anti-HST petitions that I have read so far, I only hope that if and when it makes it to a referendum that the wording is changed so that I can be supportive of your campaign.

Incidentally, I tend to support your view of 5,000 at least as opposed to the 1,000 although it might be a little generous, but when you get down to it, who cares? Even an infinite number of disempowered bodies screaming that they're unhappy amounts to squat.

As for the initiative angle, I'd be happy to sign a recall petition but I don't expect there to be enough of a push to oust the NDP representative in my riding.

And as for PR, well I'm assuming that by now, almost everyone has figured out we need something better than FPTP so how about a general invitation to all your readers to submit their ideas for the best version of proportional representation?

Am I upset? You bet. Thanks for allowing me to vent, and about something even more disastrous than the HST.

Peter said...

"A Saturday Globe and Mail editorial states : "Four-tenths of a per cent, the increase that TD Economics predicts in the average consumer-price level as a result of sales-tax harmonization in British Columbia and Ontario, is an acceptable price to pay for greater efficiency and neutrality in Canadian taxation, and greater international competitiveness."

Oh really? Try reading the actual TD analysis: "In B.C., consumers will be subject to a 7 percentage point increase on the tax rate on 21 per cent of their expenditures." "

Re: Bill Tielman - Are you purposely trying to confuse the difference between these two values, or do you really have no understanding of basic economic principles? This article may appeal to the bleeding hearts of our province but you are alienating those of us who actually know a thing or two about the economy, whether we support the HST or not.

Anonymous said...

Clearly the concept of credibility is foreign one to you Tieleman.

Bill Tieleman said...

Clearly the English language is a foreign one to you Anonymous 8:29 - or at least proof reading is!

Angela - it's sad you spend so much time crying over spilt milk - but at least I let you do it here.

Trev - first, the BC government has made clear that all additional revenue from the HST goes to business tax credits - none to public services.

Second, the TD study didn't specify which 21% of expenditures will get the 7% increase. If you buy a new home in Vancouver over $400,000 it's one heck of a lot!

Third, why should I pay a penny more to big business with my hard-earned money anyway? Would you write a cheque to Alcan or Canfor each year for $300?

If I want to make donations, they'll go to charity!

Kyle - I have no idea what your objection really is.

Anonymous said...

Bill:

It appears our "beloved" premier's Communications Directorate must be running up a great deal of overtime this month considering all the Young Liberal fart-catchers sending in attack pieces to you.

The "Yout-Wing" of the party seems to produce endless masses of these free-enterprise storm troopers who when they are not trashing hotel rooms in a drunken stooper are attempting to procreate in the laundry room of the Pan Pacific.

But I guess they have get their political education somewhere so they can grow up to be PREMIER.

The GREAT SATAN

Laila said...

In my opinion,many British Columbians don't pay much attention to economist's or analyst's.

They do pay attention to how money they have left over( if any, for many) from their paycheques, EI payments or welfare cheques,AFTER they've paid bills,bought groceries, etc.

So,to all the naysayers above, let's deal with that reality, rather than your fraction percentage points and all the virtues this tax promises to beckon big business with.
If you recall, we have the highest childhood poverty rate here in BC, and our unemployment numbers aren't likely to be looking better anytime soon.

Do you honestly believe this tax is going to result in savings being passed on to the consumer? I don't.


That's why I posted the PDF format "HST Hit List" worksheet on my blog,courtesy of the FIGHT HST group.

Incidentally, they've forwarded this very list to newspapers across BC and asked them to print it for their readers. Have you seen any yet?

It lists many of the items that were previously exempt, but will now be taxed under the HST, and helps you figure out how much you are likely to be spending on this tax over a week, a month,a year.

They have also asked the Premier and Colin Hansen to fill them out personally to see how much this tax will cost them as well. I suspect no replies are forthcoming on that one.

Anyone interested can check it out at www.lailayuile.wordpress.com

Angela said...

Actually Bill, it's you that is crying over spilt milk. I on the other hand continue to work towards a real solution.

Anonymous said...

Missing the obvious: Soupy and premier-in-waiting had to harmonize with Harper because they need the money (don't we all, now) and still have four years to overcome the bad vibes. Not a problem with an electorate that has a four-week attention span.

I'm against politicians lying but this problem is really more complex and sophisticated than that, omission not being seen by most of us as lying. Only the Catholics have noticed the trouble omission causes. Combine it with that other tool of political leaders, plausible deniability and you have the requisite confusion and doubt they so depend upon. It’s their “easy button”: we feel screwed but don’t completely know how or why and usually don’t overthrow them. They may have gone a bridge too far this time but still, “who could have known?” That’s their story and they’re sticking by it. And we are complicit in the perpetuation of this cycle of deceit. We actually didn’t want to know that the Olympics were not financially viable and we were being ripped off and driven into recession by greed and deception. Many of us were invested in it.

This pattern will not change until more of us pay attention to what is going on around us. The lack of media attention and criticism (more omission) is an important reason we are not paying sufficient heed. Of course the lack of media coverage has lead to said absence of attention span which leads to more inattention and so on. So, to have any impact at all on these boondoggles, many more of us will have to dig to inform ourselves and I have grave doubts that a critical mass of people in this province will cease to omit doing so. Therefore, we will continue to not notice what we are not told and will get the govt. we deserve. They depend on us not noticing. Can't blame them for that; we're all doing it.

Anonymous said...

Sheesh.

The trolls are carrying heavy clubs these days.
That must be some stash of gold they're hiding!

Fortunately, they turn to stone when exposed to light! Keep up the good work, Bill.

Anonymous said...

Ontario opposition high to harmonized tax, poll suggests
By Jordana Huber , Canwest News ServiceSeptember 23, 2009 1:39 PM
TORONTO — Polling conducted in the spring by the Ontario government found nearly 70 per cent of respondents were opposed to the province's tax harmonization plan.


The post-budget poll — which has a large margin of error — of 200 people was conducted for the Ministry of Finance at the end of March. It shows 68 per cent were opposed to a single sales tax that would apply to goods and services previously exempt from the provincial sales tax.


The survey was obtained by the NDP under the Freedom of Information Act.


The new tax is scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2010.


"One can only imagine what the numbers would look like if Ontarians were told the HST will kill up to 40,000 jobs each year," NDP Leader Andrea Horwath said during Question Period.


Conservative Leader Tim Hudak said the poll reflects what he has been hearing from Ontarians across the province.


"It's an unaffordable tax increase on the backs of middle class families and seniors," Hudak said.


Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty said the government doesn't govern by polls and the single most important way to strengthen the economy is to move ahead with a harmonized sales tax.


"We are not moving ahead with the HST because of the ground swell of support for it. We're doing it because it's going to put Ontario at the forefront in North America," McGuinty said.


The new HST, which blends the eight per cent provincial sales tax with the five per cent GST, will raise the cost of a range of items previously exempted from the PST, including gas, hydro bills, hair cuts and newspaper subscriptions.


On Wednesday, a coalition of business leaders announced the formation of the Smart Tax Alliance to promote the "positive benefits of sales tax harmonization."


"The tax rate on business investment in Ontario has put us at a disadvantage next to our peer jurisdictions in the U.S. and Canada, and it must urgently be addressed," Len Crispino, President & CEO of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce said in a statement.


"If we are expected to be a magnet for investment and innovation in this province, we must move ahead with the tax reforms, most importantly, sales tax harmonization."


The poll has a margin of error of 6.7 per cent 19 times out of 20

Trev said...

Trolls, anon? I see no trolling, just debate (aside from the "crying over spilt milk" comments, which are pretty bland as trolling goes).

I'm not with YL, just a university student.

Mr. Tieleman, thank you for your response. I agree that being forced to pay money to big business by the government is wrong, and I have to grant that real estate purchases will be significantly impacted, but considering how volatile that market is, it's hard to tell what would happen - it's quite possible that base prices would slip down to compensate for the increased tax. As for paying money to Alcan, I think the reverse is more likely - I'm studying mining engineering.

One point that seems to be slipping through the cracks here: HST would be here forever. What the money gets spent on is up to the government in power, and I doubt the Liberals will make it through the next election, even if they do a remarkable job of making people happy over the next few years. I do have complaints about the NDP (mainly that reducing taxes and increasing the degree of socialism - I'm too young to have the stigma attached to that word - make for lots of debt), I have no doubt that they'll do more than just line the pockets of big business with the HST money.

Anonymous said...

I see all the economists always say it is good for business but they never say" yes it will be good for the people and the services they get. At one time taxes were to serve the people not serve Business.

Otis Krayola said...

At one time the letter carrier or the bus driver or the nurse could buy a house in Vancouver and put the kids through school on their wages. As a single breadwinner.

At one time people didn't eat out of garbage cans and sleep on the street.

At one time business mattered, but it wasn't put forward as the only thing that matters.

Anonymous said...

“The bitter reality is this: consumers are going to pay an outrageous 7 per cent extra tax on all sorts of goods and services to subsidize the profits of big business.” Bill Tieleman


The above is the most asinine comment I have yet read on the HST debate. The HST is a value added tax that like all consumption taxes is levied on the consumer when they choose to purchase a good or service.

If a consumer chooses to dine out or visit a spa or hire an interior decorator they will in turn contribute to our tax base as they rightfully and fairly should. The real question to be asked is why were these services exempted in the first place?

Why is yacht moorage and golf and country club dues also exempt ?

As for “profits of big business” this comment demonstrates a profound lack of understanding how businesses operate. Businesses simply pass on all costs of doing business directly down to consumers “hidden” within the pricing structure. This is the very essence of how a business, stay in business. It amazes me that someone like Mr. Tieleman could posses such a limited understanding of basic business fundamentals.

Yes, the HST will see people paying more in taxes than they did in the past and that in itself is a legitimate discussion, however to imply that the elimination of a tax that is based on capital expenditures that in turn basically amounts to a tax on productivity simply means that is one less cost that will be passed down to consumers as is currently the case. At the same time the cascading effect of the hidden PST and subsequent “tax on tax” scenario is also eliminated.

Aside from increased efficiency and overall fairness the HST is also a far more transparent form of taxation.

Anonymous said...

Actually most companies with the pst number do not pay pst on many items they buy. We didn,t when we were in business we mostly pai the GST.

Bill Tieleman said...

An anonymous poster at 5:40 p.m. calls comments in this column that consumers will pay an extra 7% HST to subsidize big business "asinine".

And the poster goes on to say: "As for “profits of big business” this comment demonstrates a profound lack of understanding how businesses operate. Businesses simply pass on all costs of doing business directly down to consumers “hidden” within the pricing structure."

Notwithstanding that we have no idea how much business acumen an anonymous poster has, let me guess that they have absolutely none.

Consumers will pay an extra 7% to allow big business to claim input tax credits - this isn't disputed by either business or the government.

In particular, consumers who eat at Tim Hortons or A&W or any restaurant plain or fancy will pay 7% more. If you can't figure out that this will reduce eating out, reduce tips, reduce staff hours of work and reduce profits you clearly don't understand basic economics.

Second - if you can't figure out a consumption tax is regressive - that it costs lower and middle income earners a far larger percentage of their total income than rich folks you don't understand basic math.

Third - decades of governments - mostly right-wing Social Credit - developed the PST exemptions for public policy reasons. Bicycles, for example, were excluded by the Socreds in the 1980s to encourage people to ride instead of drive.

Up until the HST surprise announcement former BC Liberal Finance Minister Carole Taylor and former Small Business Minister Rick Thorpe strongly defended PST exemptions.

Lastly - this wins the prize as the most ignorant comment of a stellar crop: "Businesses simply pass on all costs of doing business directly down to consumers “hidden” within the pricing structure. This is the very essence of how a business, stay in business."

"It amazes me that someone like Mr. Tieleman could posses such a limited understanding of basic business fundamentals."

Oh really? I've been in business for 11 years and this is the worst government move I've ever seen.

All my clients will have to pay an extra 7% for no change in my services. I fully expect some of them will have to cut back on what they contract me to do as a result, reducing my income and ability to hire others, buy goods and service and invest money.

This applies to a wide range of professions, not just communications.

If you can't figure out that this will hurt the highly damaged BC economy even more you clearly lack both business and economic sense.

Anonymous said...

"All my clients will have to pay an extra 7% for no change in my services. I fully expect some of them will have to cut back on what they contract me to do as a result, reducing my income and ability to hire others, buy goods and service and invest money." Bill Tieleman

So who are your clients Bill ? Because if any of your clients are actually in business your services will not cost them a dime due to HST as the HST on your “services” becomes an input tax credit for them and is subtracted from the HST they collect with the balance remitted to government

Once again your spin falls short. Not to mention the balance of your HST remitted; at least the Provincial portion will indeed go into general revenue that in turn helps fund health and education. Why do you insist on pretending otherwise?

You claim and try to pretend that your clients will actually pay HST on your services. If you are truly are in business and your clients are truly in business than they are GST registered (soon to be HST registered) and that means your comments are a crock of crap. Try and prove me wrong on this one. Just try. You are full of crap and you know it.

Bill Tieleman said...

Anonymous 7:12 p.m. - You are more of a moron than even I thought.

First off, no, most of my clients are not businesses - they are non-profit organizations. And they are the end-users of my services.

Second - the HST has to be paid by someone - when I charge the extra 7% on my services if neither I nor my clients pay it, who does?

Third - you falsely claim the HST "helps fund health and education". The reality is what Finance Minister Colin Hansen told the Burnaby NOW on August 14: "In terms of the revenue of the HST, it's roughly the same as the revenue we currently get from the PST. People use the term 'revenue neutral,' but what we expect will come in under the HST is what we currently get."

Figure it out smart guy - no extra money for anything.

You can be as insulting as you like - but you are dead wrong.

And if you think I've got problems, go talk to the restaurant industry or the homebuilding industry!

Anonymous said...

So let’s see, first you said “All my clients will have to pay an extra 7% for no change in my services” this statement of course overlooks that it any of your clients are legitimate business groups that are GST registered then the HST on your services would not impact them at all as it becomes an input tax credit.

Now you have changed your tune to suggest that in reality not all but actually “most” of your clients are non profit groups. I was actually floored by this statement. Non profits groups are hiring former NDP spin doctors with money intended for charity? This seems a fairly serious admission by you if true.

My question to you; if you are claiming that the provincial portion of HST does not go into general revenue where it funds things like health and education where are you suggesting that this money does go ?

Fact is many of your statements under closer scrutiny are proven untrue so you attempt to change the topic. You didn’t expect anyone to figure out that HST on your services would be nothing more than an input tax credit and thus not present any increases at all. That of course assumes you actually have legitimate businesses for clients and it is becoming obvious you do not. Apparently “most” of your money is coming from “non profit” organizations.

Maybe you should publish a client list and people could think twice about who they donate too.

Anonymous said...

7:29,I was gonna ask you what your problem was,but I think I'd need your doctors number to answer that question?

Anonymous said...

In response to 7:26 pm

My problem ?

Tieleman made a false an erroneous statement that “all” of his clients would be paying more for his services once HST is implemented….this statement is in error because any legitimate business would simply claim HST on Tieleman’s services as an input tax credit. A true fact that Tieleman has rather conveniently tried to avoid by now suggesting that only “some” of his clients will be impacted because apparently; according to Tieleman most of his clients are from Non Profit societies.

This is; if true a rather disturbing comment from Tieleman; however I expect it is BS and I have challenged him to name the many so called “non profit” organizations that he apparently deals with. To date he has not responded and changed the topic instead.

But I am not going away. I expect that most of Tieleman’s most recent money really came form what he billed the NO HST side during the recent election. Hence how he could afford his trip to France afterwards.

I submit is time that we all start to have a closer look at Bill Tieleman and where he really get’s his money from. I know I will be.

Bill Tieleman said...

Anonymous 8:03 has come to this blog from the Tyee - where he or shee has been intent on proving their ignorance.

To deal with this rather sad BC Liberal spin - my clients are primarily but not exclusively non-profit groups.

However, some are businesses and I ask our unknown friend this important question - if my company doesn't pay the HSt and my business clients don't pay the HST, exactly who does?

Secondly, I couldn't have billed a "NO HST" organization for my services during the last election because it didn't exist!

I suspect you meant NO STV and if so I can make it perfectly clear that I did not bill a penny to NO STV - the group I was president of.

I contributed a large amount of money and time to the cause and was not paid at all.

My trip to France - thanks for noticing - was paid for the way anyone else pays for it - through my earnings.

Now, since we're asking so many questions about me, how about a few for you?

Who are you?

Are you a BC Liberal government or party employee? A major donor?

What is your job? Who pays you?

And why are you defending an HST that the overwhelming majority of British Columbians oppose?

I allow you to attack me on my own blog - surely you can answer such simply questions.