Editor:
Let me establish right in the beginning that I have no intent to criticize any particular individual within the Regional District of Okanagan-Similkameen (RDOS).
The RDOS staff are generally intelligent, hard-working, enthusiastic, imaginative and want to be productive and do a good job.
However, they are not doing a good job for the residents of Anarchist Mountain.
The taxation level is too high for the level of services provided, and the ever increasing control and intrusion exerted by the RDOS is neither warranted nor welcome.
The basis of my concern is that the Local Government Act gives regional districts too much undefined authority and too little accountability.
Regarding Anarchist Mountain, the majority of the population primarily consists of people who are retired, are farmers, and/or are working from home or commuting to work.
Fire service is paid for and provided by the local population.
Given the geography and topography of the area it is not practical to assume that a regional district is ever going to provide any of the other services they provide in an urban area, and frankly, few of those services are needed or wanted by the Anarchist Mountain residents.
However, as with every level of government, there appears to be a belief there is unlimited access to taxpayer’s wallets, and the inevitable result is more planning, more bureaucracy, more staff and a higher level of taxation.
With little oversight from the provincial government there is nobody standing between the taxpayer and the activities of regional districts.
It is up to the citizens of a country to have a say in what governments do, and to set boundaries on authority and intrusion into their lives and privacy.
However, once elected, politicians are absorbed into the established organizational culture of the supporting bureaucracy.
Regardless how idealistic or well-intentioned newly elected politicians may be, there is pressure to conform to the status quo.
It takes a lot of courage, integrity and energy to not be assimilated and to fight the inertia of the status quo.
The federal and provincial levels of government have an opposition (however ineffectual) which is responsible for providing rebuttal and objective criticism to the governing party.
Regional districts have no opposition, can autonomously extend their area of influence, and assume increasing levels of responsibility and control – all without anyone apparently having the authority to question their activities or decisions.
This is not what a democracy is supposed to be, and not what countless brave men and women suffered and died to protect. Democracy is not a right but a privilege that we must earn and defend.
As every square inch of the province is part of a regional district, Anarchist Mountain cannot be its own autonomous area.
However, the residents can and have requested the Province change their level of government and discontinue their association with the RDOS.
Other than bylaw development and enforcement, land use planning and building inspection, there is no reasonable expectation of any growth in the services provided to Anarchist Mountain by the RDOS.
There is limited return on the tax dollar investment the RDOS imposes upon rural residents, and in fact, the residents are paying millions of dollars for services they will never get and do not want.
We are not cash cows for a greedy bureaucracy and we have the right to have a say in our own destiny.
The citizens of Anarchist Mountain are saying no to the taxation level and no to the RDOS governance.
Joe Simoes,
Anarchist Mountain

OSOYOOS TIMES-March 10, 2010

HST WILL HELP STRUGGLING BUSINESSES

Editor:
I’d like to commend Times reporter Laurena Weninger on her impressive article on HST.
Unlike most others, she took the time to examine the proposed tax changes from all angles.
In such times as now when provincial revenues are down, businesses are suffering and costs are increasing.
It is the time to examine how taxes are applied.
The current tax system is confusing, out of date and provides no understanding of how taxes are calculated on the goods we purchase.
Taxpayers are not very keen on the idea of a new tax, but this isn’t a new tax, it is a simplified tax and better yet, it’s easier for all to understand how it works.
B.C. has benefited from over 100 tax cuts since 2001, and currently we boast the lowest personal income taxes in the country for those making under $118,000/year (even lower than Alberta).
As we emerge from this recession stronger and prouder as a province, we will now have the opportunity to be competitive in the global markets.
Zach Poturica,
Osoyoos

OSOYOOS TIMES-March 10, 2010

HST WON’T BE GOOD FOR B.C.

Editor:
Ms. Weninger states that she is entitled to her pro-HST stance and shouldn’t be pelted with rotten eggs for her opinion.
It is ironic, then, that Ms. Weninger proceeds to ridicule the people who don’t share her opinion.
Ms. Weninger implies that those who are anti-HST are influenced by scare tactics, inflated truths, fear mongers and anti-HST propaganda.
My, My, My!
Experts can be lined up on both the anti and pro sides of this question, as can lists of supporters and opponents.
It often depends on where you look that determines the information you get.
The most important thing in this process is to be open-minded enough to consider both sides of the question.
We pay taxes to the government to provide services such as health, education, social services, etc.
Will the HST benefit any of the above?
In my opinion, these services will be negatively impacted because of a 12-per-cent HST on services instead of the present five-per-cent GST.
It is said that the HST is necessary to help businesses be more viable, and that is a laudable goal.
However, I am sure our government can come up with a better way to do this than by adding extra costs to the families (consumers) who can least afford it.
However, in my opinion, the three most compelling reasons to urge our government to drop the harmonized tax are as follows:
Firstly, and most importantly, the tax will be administered by the federal government – the furthest level from local control and influence.
In handing this control over to the federal government, the provincial government could jeopardize its flexibility and decision-making powers.
Secondly, the former Finance Minister in the Campbell government, Carole Taylor, was not in favor of a harmonized tax.
One of the reasons she rejected the HST was because of the impact it would have on middle and lower income families.
Because of the extra costs for necessary purchases like food, housing and transportation, this sector’s costs would go up the most under harmonization.
According to Taylor, the unfairness of the tax was enough to scrap any idea of harmonization.
Her colleague, Rick Thorpe, a former Cabinet Minister in the Campbell government, was also opposed to the HST.
Thirdly, according to a C. D. Howe Institute analysis of the revenue impact of a harmonized tax in B.C., the government will reap $4 billion in new taxes by 2012.
Also, according to this report, B.C. could raise more revenue than the present PST does by applying an HST of only 7 per cent.
So why the huge 12-per-cent HST, and where will the $4 billion go?
(I was told that this would be the largest tax grab in B.C.’s history, but have no way of verifying this information.)
In conclusion, I don’t believe the argument that we should have this value-added tax because a lot of other countries around the world have this system.
It is my opinion that we are managing the present economic downturn a lot better than some of these other countries, so why should we follow in their footsteps?
Can we not work with our MLAs and the provincial government to stop the implementation of a system of taxation that has so many negatives?
Virginia Cook,
Osoyoos

OSOYOOS TIMES-March 10, 2010

PRO-HST COLUMN WAS DEAD WRONG

Editor:
The thing about opinion columns is that they are just that, expressions of opinion.
You can’t argue with someone’s opinion, it’s theirs.  Not yours.
So, I won’t.
I can, however, take Ms. Weninger to task over the presentation of her opinion, because there is nothing in Ms. Weninger’s column that can show conclusively that HST is actually something for people like her and I to be “Pro” about.
She has collected ‘pro-HST’ comments from people with conspicuous titles, such as “associate professor” and “accountant.”
I do note, however, that not one of the well-titled names she drops as supporters of HST represents a consumer oriented organization.
All business organizations.
Indeed, she references Kevin Milligan, Associate Professor of Economics at University of British Columbia, as saying “It’s good for business…”
He’s not quoted as saying it’s good for consumers.
Also quoted, Terry Craig, Accountant, thinks HST is good for B.C.
Alas, his comment regarding how much our income tax has allegedly come down from 1997 (35 per cent he gives in this example) has absolutely nothing to do with the merits of HST.
Why is it included in a column about being Pro HST?
I suspect Ms. Weninger is trying to associate our emotional response towards our personal income tax declining over the last many years, with the HST.
If she has successfully associated the two in our mind, we might wonder why we should complain about a small tax increase like the HST, considering the many bountiful years of income tax reduction that we have been experiencing.
HST is applied to more things as an amalgamation of two taxes than the separate PST and GST were applied to.
It has nothing to do with your ever declining income tax rate.
That’s why.
You pay more tax.
“HST is going to level the playing field between different types of businesses.”
A strong statement, implying the HST to be a righteous and forthright tax.
Hmm, do you really think it’s all that?
I don’t.
These “different types of businesses” aren’t playing on the same field to begin with, that’s why they’re “different”, and as such, aren’t in competition specifically with each other.
The measurable benefit to the tire shop will be negligible if their theoretical competitor (a competitor like a distant cousin, nine times removed) the restaurant, now has to include more tax on the bill.
Again, you pay more tax.
Ms. Weninger says “I remember the complaining that came along with the implementation of the GST – and how quickly that subsided.”
Just because people gave up the fight, doesn’t in any way mean that the new tax was suddenly realized to be fair or welcome.
And, if she actually was the student of Canadian politics at that time that she claims she was, she would know that the GST actually took just under a year to take effect, after much debate and political chicanery.
Let us review: Jan. 24, 1990: GST bill introduced in the House of Commons.
Sept. 27, 1990: Facing Liberal opposition to the GST in the Senate, Mulroney uses obscure constitutional provision to stack upper chamber with eight more Tories.
Dec. 13, 1990: After months of tense debate, the GST legislation is passed in the Senate.
Jan. 1, 1991: The seven-per-cent GST goes into effect.
And in the end, the Canadian consumer pays more tax.
Wayne Goldsmith,
Osoyoos

OSOYOOS TIMES-March 10, 2010