Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum
Fishing in British Columbia => General Discussion => Topic started by: Phronesis on February 07, 2023, 10:29:54 AM
-
I was in the market to find a used car and saw this news
- https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-used-car-buyers-furious-over-provincial-tax-changes-1.6663587
They charge PST on what they "think" is the value of the car rather than the actual purchase price.
like wtf, its already a bad situation to live a normal life and govt instead of helping wants to make it more difficult for us commoners !
Many other countries dont even have taxes on used cars from private sale. Even US has low average tax on used cars at around 5 %
Even the tax slabs on income need to be refreshed, their definition of low income is 21k per annum !! you cant even pay rent or eat properly with 35k income. Rich folks get to enjoy the tax loopholes while commoners take the burden.........its so messed up
Petition links below-
1. https://www.change.org/p/share-and-sign-no-donation-required-stop-the-unfair-tax-imposed-on-used-vechiles-on-british-columbians-it-is-gouging-us
2. https://www.taxpayer.com/petitions/no-pst-on-used-items-in-b.c
Other news article - https://www.princegeorgecitizen.com/local-news/petition-calls-for-end-to-bc-tax-grab-on-sale-of-used-goods-6218572
-
Another tax grab. Taxpayers should pay politicians for what we "think" they're worth.
-
the worst is if you got to a certified used car "assessor" you have to pay $150 to get the lower value proven and you do not get that money back.
this needs to be challenged in court.
-
this has been the case for decades. They may have decided to enforce it more stringently or when they brought the PST back it wasn't included in the regs. BTW the article incorrectly said the PST is 12%. It is 7%. Total sales taxes is 12% including GST at 5%
-
The real scam is that they use different book values to assess the tax on a sale vs the value of a payout if it's written off. There are three different "books" in Canada to obtain a value of the car; Edmunds, Kelly's Blue Book, and Canadian Black Book. You pay tax on the Canadian Black Book but should the vehicle ever get written off they use the Edmunds to determine value. On average, Edmunds values are half of the Black Book value, with Blue Book usually floating in the middle.
If the government states Black Book is the value of vehicle when it sold in BC that should be the only book they use; not choosing the one that to suit your themselves
-
well the blue book is wholesale value while the black book is retail. Both are based on what you can expect to get from a dealer either as a trade in or retail price. Private sales are usually lower than retail even if retailers may provide a discount.
-
News quote - "Changes bring B.C. in line with other provinces, says government" - if they wanted to be in line with other provinces then they should remove ICBC's monopoly too, bring in competition, but they wont - hypocrites
-
News quote - "Changes bring B.C. in line with other provinces, says government" - if they wanted to be in line with other provinces then they should remove ICBC's monopoly too, bring in competition, but they wont - hypocrites
btw ICBC reported 1.9 Billion in profits 2021- end march 2022... Crazy stuff, bcliquorstore makes over a B too...
-
well the blue book is wholesale value while the black book is retail. Both are based on what you can expect to get from a dealer either as a trade in or retail price. Private sales are usually lower than retail even if retailers may provide a discount.
Correct. But the issue is not what the book says. The issue is they are not being consistent. You could, in theory, buy a vehicle, pay the tax on the black book value, insure it, walk out to see it in flames and they will offer you Edmunds book value on it. The books they use in a given scenario has been confirmed by ICBC.
On some vehicles there can be over a $10,000 discrepancy. If ICBC is going to dictate the value of car by the black book value, not by what I paid for it, when I am transfering it to my name they should use the same book when they transfer it out of my name into theirs.
-
the issue is not what the book says. The issue is they are not being consistent. You could, in theory, buy a vehicle, pay the tax on the black book value, insure it, walk out to see it in flames... they will offer you Edmunds book value on it.
that's right because a car loses significant value as soon as it is driven off the lot by a new owner. There are 2 different markets for cars so there are 2 different vehicle valuations. It's also no secret that values are often misrepresented in private sales. Both those books present averaged value across those different markets and not the value that 2 people agree on in a particular transaction. Still it would be interesting to know why there was a 500% spread between the value of that pickup between the black book value and what was paid. Was there something wrong with the it like body damage or the transmission needed repair? The books don't just provide a single value but also consider condition and mileage. It's not as simple as the article presents it.
-
The whole thing is actually illegal.
Canadian tax laws are crystal clear that you pay tax on the agreed 'purchase price'. ICBC is forcing us to pay tax on a 'suggested or assumed value'.
Completely illegal, but even if it was taken to the supreme court, the judges in this province and country gave their balls away decades ago.
Corruption is so rampant in this world that no one has the strength or desire to even try. No one cares about honesty and integrity anymore...that goes triple for our politicians and lawmakers.
-
I dislike this rule too. My son is going to grade 12 and I was going to sell him my old car for $1 because that's what he can afford. Now I will just let him be the principle driver instead.
-
I dislike this rule too. My son is going to grade 12 and I was going to sell him my old car for $1 because that's what he can afford. Now I will just let him be the principle driver instead.
check is there are exemptions for gift transfers between immediate family...there used to be.
-
The whole thing is actually illegal.
Canadian tax laws are crystal clear that you pay tax on the agreed 'purchase price'.
I am afraid that's not correct. Assessing actual values for tax purposes has been a problematic issue since taxes were introduced. For most legal purposes such as reporting requirements and tax liability the value basis is fair market value.
which tax act and what paragraph are you looking at?
-
I am afraid that's not correct. Assessing actual values for tax purposes has been a problematic issue since taxes were introduced. For most legal purposes such as reporting requirements and tax liability the value basis is fair market value.
which tax act and what paragraph are you looking at?
Of course you'd be the one to argue this point.
You can't charge tax on an estimated value. Please show me where you think this is legal.
-
It's done all the time. CRA and the PST branch has the authority to estimate revenues, taxable purchases and any other transaction where there is a reasonable basis to think taxes are being deliberately avoided and charge taxes thereon. There can also assess penalties in such cases where taxes they find are delinquent. Typical penalties can start at $10,000.
-
It's done all the time. CRA and the PST branch has the authority to estimate revenues, taxable purchases and any other transaction where there is a reasonable basis to think taxes are being deliberately avoided and charge taxes thereon. There can also assess penalties in such cases where taxes they find are delinquent. Typical penalties can start at $10,000.
I'm not disagreeing with you that it's done all time, but nothing in your post proves that charging tax on estimations or assumed values is legal. Our governments are doing illegal things every day.
I decided to double check our tax laws online again. It clearly states that you can only charge tax on the amount that the goods or services are sold for.
It even gives an example for the mathematically challenged.
Here is another question for you.
My grade 12 son worked a part time job while finishing his last full time year of high school. He paid a decent amount of EI deductions while working. The fact is that if he got laid off while still in high school, he would have never been allowed to collect any EI because he is a full time student. There is no way around this. So what you have is a government that is forcing you to pay into an insurance policy that you are locked out of ever collecting. That is as corrupt as it gets and yet our government is doing it. He will never get back those EI premiums he paid.
Are you going to tell me that is legal to force someone to pay insurance for something they can never collect on?
You don't seem to understand that with both of these examples, the problem isn't about fixing an issue where something is being done illegally. The problem is that Canada is corrupt from the lawmakers right down to the judges, and because of that....it doesn't matter whether they do things that are illegal. Fact is, nobody can stop them. That's what you don't understand. If we had a government with ethics, these 2 examples would have been shut down in the courts immediately.
-
I decided to double check our tax laws online again. It clearly states that you can only charge tax on the amount that the goods or services are sold for.
You might want to triple check the tax laws online again.
The BC Provincial Sales Tax Act clearly states that "if the average wholesale value of a motor vehicle is greater than the designated purchase price, the purchase price of the motor vehicle is the average wholesale value."
https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/12035_01 Section 10.01
You throw out the term "illegal". Do you really think the province would try to collect a tax that crown lawyers hadn't first enshrined in the Act and Regulations?
It's in the Act. It's not illegal. You might not agree with it. And, yes, it may even be perceived as being corrupt. But it ain't illegal.
-
I decided to double check our tax laws online again. It clearly states that you can only charge tax on the amount that the goods or services are sold for.
As I said previously what section of the applicable legislation are you referring to? Without that there is no point in repeating yourself since what you keep insisting makes no sense.
I will give you an example. If a person or a business imports some goods from another country and those goods are subject to PST (they are not for resale or otherwise exempted) - they may pay for those goods, the agreed sales price, taxes in the country they originate from, shipping charges and duty charges. PST is liable to be paid on the entire amount; the agreed sales price plus taxes charged in that country plus the shipping charge and any duty paid to the Government of Canada!
-
Laws keep changing according to time and it does not make the law morally "right" .... I think thats what Bobby is trying to convey
When there is a law thats flawed through corruption or just a mistake, common people suffer....
With this example of used cars, they could implement an assessor paid for by the govt and collect the right amount of tax but instead they want us to pay for everything which I dont agree with or better dont tax private sale used cars, new cars paid off the tax then why milk it everytime it gets sold that too on a depreciating asset....
Rich guys get away with tax loopholes, lobby(fancy term for bribe) politicians, they want to keep it that way and get richer and squeeze every ounce of blood from commoners instead.... This applies worldwide
-
Hey Ralph. Are you going to answer my EI question that I gave you or not?
You might want to triple check the tax laws online again.
The BC Provincial Sales Tax Act clearly states that "if the average wholesale value of a motor vehicle is greater than the designated purchase price, the purchase price of the motor vehicle is the average wholesale value."
https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/12035_01 Section 10.01
You throw out the term "illegal". Do you really think the province would try to collect a tax that crown lawyers hadn't first enshrined in the Act and Regulations?
It's in the Act. It's not illegal. You might not agree with it. And, yes, it may even be perceived as being corrupt. But it ain't illegal.
Well, I can't argue with that, but I really wish there were amendment dates in that document. There is NO way that document hasn't been amended recently to fit what the BC government wants.
Anyways....I can admit when I'm wrong. It seems that the new ICBC taxing process is currently NOT illegal....nonetheless it is still as corrupt as corrupt is. Like others have said. One book to tax the customer when they pay, and a different book to use when the customer collects.....absolutely corrupt beyond measure.
Laws keep changing according to time and it does not make the law morally "right" .... I think thats what Bobby is trying to convey
Exactly.
-
but I really wish there were amendment dates in that document. There is NO way that document hasn't been amended recently to fit what the BC government wants.
The amendment dates are available, just not in the Act itself. You need to click the Table of Legislative Changes at the top and then get into Act Point in Time.
You are correct: 10.01 and 10.1 d, e f were enacted Oct 1/22.
But isn't that the purpose of legislative changes: to fit what the government wants?
-
Paying $5000 for a car (in cash) and then telling the taxman you only paid $1000 for tax purposes is the very definition of corrupt. Happens all the time, or did.
-
Paying $5000 for a car (in cash) and then telling the taxman you only paid $1000 for tax purposes is the very definition of corrupt. Happens all the time, or did.
So the provincial gov’t is fighting corruption with further corruption? That’s a head scratcher! 😀
-
The amendment dates are available, just not in the Act itself. You need to click the Table of Legislative Changes at the top and then get into Act Point in Time.
You are correct: 10.01 and 10.1 d, e f were enacted Oct 1/22.
But isn't that the purpose of legislative changes: to fit what the government wants?
That says everything we need to know....
Paying $5000 for a car (in cash) and then telling the taxman you only paid $1000 for tax purposes is the very definition of corrupt. Happens all the time, or did.
Really....when it comes right down to it, no one in their right mind thinks it's ok to charge tax on used items. The tax was paid. Again.....greed and corruption.
-
Paying $5000 for a car (in cash) and then telling the taxman you only paid $1000 for tax purposes is the very definition of corrupt. Happens all the time, or did.
And charging tax over and over and over for the same car sold is what exactly? Tax was paid for said vehicle when new. The gov't got it's cut.
Personally I'd like to see a referendum on the matter. And the way the gov't is dragging it's feet for online voting shows how terrified the govt is about genuine democracy.
If there was on online vote tomorrow on whether to eliminate the tax on used vehicles say...under $10,000.
How do you think the voice of the people would vote.
Maybe we should have one here on FWR just as a teaser. I believe that mechanism exists on the website...
-
Hey Ralph. Are you going to answer my EI question that I gave you or not?
No.
I will note that very few people ever directly collect on their life insurance either. I've never collected on my fire insurance. I hope i never do. When someone broke into my house I installed dead bolts and an alarm system. No B&Es since then.
The concept of insurance isn't about collecting benefits. It's about reducing risk.
Much like taxes. Taxes are collected by government to do government business including providing people with services and building infrastructure. If the sources of taxation are reduced then either government raises tax from new sources or it has to reduce services, infrastructure etc.
I'd also note that sales taxes have long been criticized for putting a bigger burden on the less well off and easy on the well off. No one likes them but try finding a political party that wants to cut them in half or even eliminate them.
Paying $5000 for a car (in cash) and then telling the taxman you only paid $1000 for tax purposes is the very definition of corrupt. Happens all the time, or did.
Bingo. When someone pays 1/5th of the average wholesale price for a pickup, something may be rotten in Denmark.
BTW in 2011 there was a referendum about the PST in this Province. We decided we liked it better than the alternative..
-
Hey Ralph. Are you going to answer my EI question that I gave you or not?
I'll take a crack at it. I doubt my response will in any way sway your "the government is corrupt" mindset, but I have a few comments...
Your question was "Are you going to tell me that is legal to force someone to pay insurance for something they can never collect on?"
Yes, it's a 100% legal given the provisions in the Employment Insurance Act. Is it fair or right? That's a whole different conversation, but is is legal? Absolutely.
It's not entirely accurate to say that your son will never get those premiums back and he is locked out of collecting.
Presuming your son was working after 2016, he would need to work 420 insurable hours to be eligible for EI. Can a high school student accumulate 420 working hours during a 10 month school year. It's possible...
True, your son couldn't collect EI if he lost his job between Sept and June, but what happens if he lost the job in July. Then he could collect. Sure there is a 10 month period of ineligibility during the school year but those hours worked do count towards insurable hours in the 52 week eligibility period and he could put those insurable hours towards a future claim. Not entirely correct to say that he's locked out or could never collect. Given the circumstances, he could collect on those premiums.
There's a school of thought that making EI difficult/impossible for high school students to collect is a good thing as it reduces a learned dependence on the system. It think there is some value in that. Same reasoning why the province makes it so "difficult" for an underage person to receive income assistance/welfare.
And charging tax over and over and over for the same car sold is what exactly? Tax was paid for said vehicle when new. The gov't got it's cut.
Same goes for the property transfer tax. Every time a house/property is sold, the buyer pays the tax. Doesn't matter how old the home and property is, how many times it's been sold before, the gov't collects the tax. The federal gov't also recently passed legislation that online sellers need to collect tax. So if you are flipping used goods on eBay, your buyers pay the tax. Doesn't matter how many times that item has been bought and re-sold over the course of its' life.
I'm not an expert in taxation by any stretch of the imagination, but I think it's fair to say that you aren't paying tax on an item, you are paying tax on an activity (buying/selling). The item is just used to calculate the tax owed.
-
is there nothing in the Provincial Sales Tax Act that says there is no sales on used goods? I believe there isn't. I do know if I buy a used item from a business that has a PST account and has to both report sales and taxes collected I get charged PST on any taxable purchases I make. Best I recall it was always so. Most private sales are not taxed because it isn't worth the bother to try and collect. Unfortunately the vehicle registration system provides a mechanism for taxes to be collected on private sales as it does with real estate.
BTW to both Superbooby and Clarki ... the answer to the EI question were pretty obvious.
-
LOL dennisK, everyone hates taxes.
As for a referendum... I got this from google.
Two centuries ago, a somewhat obscure Scotsman named Tytler made this profound observation: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury."
And online voting would be great if it was secure and couldn't be hacked. But it's not, so sticking to paper is only way.
-
here is the list of PST exempt goods and products for BC:
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/taxes/sales-taxes/pst/exemptions
In some cases provincial sales tax (PST) doesn't need to be paid on purchases or leases. The following exemptions are available to everyone and don't require any documentation:
Food for human consumption (e.g. basic groceries and prepared food such as restaurant meals)
Books, newspapers and magazines
Children-sized clothing
Bicycles
Prescription medications and household medical aids such as cough syrup and pain medications
Other exemptions are available in certain circumstances and may require documentation. These include exemptions for:
Health and medical products, and equipment for persons with disabilities (PDF, 606KB)
Adult-sized clothing and footwear for kids under 15 years of age (PDF, 279KB)
School supplies for students (PDF, 292KB)
Safety equipment and protective clothing (PDF, 317KB)
Farming, fertilizers, fishing and aquaculture (PDF, 606KB)
Purchases by First Nations individuals and bands on reserve land (PDF, 390KB)
Goods purchased for resale or lease (PDF, 368KB)
Used zero-emission vehicles (PDF, 398KB)
a good reason not to exempt used goods is to not distort or bias the market. Pretty standard advice from economists I figure!
-
No.
I will note that very few people ever directly collect on their life insurance either. I've never collected on my fire insurance. I hope i never do.
Of course you wouldn't answer it, because my example is an open and shut case of absolute corruption with zero ethics.
Your examples are of voluntary insurance. My example was of forced to pay insurance whether you want it or not. I'm surprised anyone would try to pull that as a fair comparison because it isn't. But that is what you do.
I don't understand you Ralph. Going by many of your posts that I've read, you are like a carbon copy of Justin Trudeau. (not a compliment)
You don't care that our governments have no ethics
You don't care that our governments discriminate between demographics.
You don't even care that our governments are morally bankrupt and completely corrupt. You always stick up for them no matter how immoral and corrupt they are.
Your posts show that you don't care if the Canadian people are even treated fairly.
You don't even defend your fellow fishermen either. I've seen many on here ask for some fairness/equality in our fisheries and you shut them down. Shame on you.
I'll take a crack at it. I doubt my response will in any way sway your "the government is corrupt" mindset, but I have a few comments...
Your question was "Are you going to tell me that is legal to force someone to pay insurance for something they can never collect on?"
Yes, it's a 100% legal given the provisions in the Employment Insurance Act. Is it fair or right? That's a whole different conversation, but is is legal? Absolutely.
Well apparently everything the government does is legal now because they just change the laws when it suits their purpose (as you yourself pointed out earlier). If you don't see an ethics problem with that, then you can't be helped.
It's not entirely accurate to say that your son will never get those premiums back and he is locked out of collecting.
Presuming your son was working after 2016, he would need to work 420 insurable hours to be eligible for EI. Can a high school student accumulate 420 working hours during a 10 month school year. It's possible...
True, your son couldn't collect EI if he lost his job between Sept and June, but what happens if he lost the job in July. Then he could collect. Sure there is a 10 month period of ineligibility during the school year but those hours worked do count towards insurable hours in the 52 week eligibility period and he could put those insurable hours towards a future claim. Not entirely correct to say that he's locked out or could never collect. Given the circumstances, he could collect on those premiums.
My son has more then enough weeks to qualify. The fact is that someone not in school full time in the same situation would be able to collect if laid off. My son in school cannot collect even though he qualifies in every other way. Whether or not he gets laid off in June or July is a crap shoot. 1 month difference in the layoff date could be the difference of losing or gaining about $7 grand. Do you seriously NOT see a problem with that? The idea of forcing someone to pay into an insurance policy that is uncollectable when needed is absolutely ludicrous. Its immoral and corrupt beyond measure. To say it plainly....it's 'STEALING'....it's THEFT. It might be legal, but that is the government we have. They legalize stealing when it suits their purpose.
There's a school of thought that making EI difficult/impossible for high school students to collect is a good thing as it reduces a learned dependence on the system. It think there is some value in that. Same reasoning why the province makes it so "difficult" for an underage person to receive income assistance/welfare.
This comment on high school students becoming dependent holds no water. Are you going to say the ethics tendency of a grade 12 student is going to be much different than a 19 year old full time not in school. Work ethic have nothing to do with age. You either have it or you don't. Sorry....but this point of yours doesn't work at all.
-
Of course you wouldn't answer it, because my example is an open and shut case of absolute corruption with zero ethics.
...
::). Excessive exaggeration and falsehoods are examples of zero ethics so you are just a black pot looking for a black kettle.
I didn't answer your question as it wasn't related to topic which was about PST on used vehicles. You just shift between x and y to suit your purpose whatever it may be.
-
::). Excessive exaggeration and falsehoods are examples of zero ethics so you are just a black pot looking for a black kettle.
Please point out any falsehoods I made. I just told the truth that you aren't interested in hearing like usual.
-
Please point out any falsehoods I made...
...here you go.
You don't care that our governments have no ethics
You don't care that our governments discriminate between demographics.
You don't even care that our governments are morally bankrupt and completely corrupt. You always stick up for them no matter how immoral and corrupt they are.
Your posts show that you don't care if the Canadian people are even treated fairly.
You don't even defend your fellow fishermen either. I've seen many on here ask for some fairness/equality in our fisheries and you shut them down.
...and now you are trying to bully me because I declined to answer your question and help you expand your posts into an endless serious of rants and personal attacks on my character.
Shame on who?
-
...here you go.
...and now you are trying to bully me because I declined to answer your question and help you expand your posts into an endless serious of rants and personal attacks on my character.
Shame on who?
Um....those aren't falsehoods. I've seen hundreds of your posts that back up what I said.
-
....it's 'STEALING'....it's THEFT. It might be legal, but that is the government we have. They legalize stealing when it suits their purpose.
And you are just coming to this conclusion now? Every single government world wide, for 6 thousand years or more, has levied taxes on their people. Historically, most of the time those taxes went to the military and the taxpayers got nothing in return (see North Korea for a current example).
Get over it.
-
And you are just coming to this conclusion now? Every single government world wide, for 6 thousand years or more, has levied taxes on their people. Historically, most of the time those taxes went to the military and the taxpayers got nothing in return (see North Korea for a current example).
Get over it.
I never once even suggested that we shouldn't pay taxes.
Sorry, but some of us still desire a country where leadership has ethics and morals.
Sometimes I shake my head how JT keeps getting voted in.
Then I read posts like yours and Ralph's and it all makes sense.
-
The antagonism toward Ralph just picks up where it left off a couple of years ago.
-
The antagonism toward Ralph just picks up where it left off a couple of years ago.
this is why we should stick to talking about fishing.. we are all here because of our love of fish and fishing
-
Same goes for the property transfer tax. Every time a house/property is sold, the buyer pays the tax. Doesn't matter how old the home and property is, how many times it's been sold before, the gov't collects the tax. The federal gov't also recently passed legislation that online sellers need to collect tax. So if you are flipping used goods on eBay, your buyers pay the tax. Doesn't matter how many times that item has been bought and re-sold over the course of its' life.
I'm not an expert in taxation by any stretch of the imagination, but I think it's fair to say that you aren't paying tax on an item, you are paying tax on an activity (buying/selling). The item is just used to calculate the tax owed.
For goods that lose value over time, it just does not make sense to keep collecting tax.........
If its the transaction - buying and selling action that gets counted then tax should be collected from many transactions on craigslist and fb marketplace - there are many expensive items too, but its harder to enforce, so govt willingly turned a blind eye? people doing intraday trading should be paying lots of taxes (ofcourse they incur losses too) but if they make crazy profits they can get away with it, thanks to tax loopholes on stock trading.
I totally understand for assets that makes profit, you tax on that profit - with the property example here, when its sold and if you make a profit, you should pay tax on that profit and not the entire purchase price - just like stocks or gold, why is it different for different commodity
just because its been going on for years does not make it "right"
-
Um....those aren't falsehoods. I've seen hundreds of your posts that back up what I said.
that's in your mind. In your mind every opinion of yours, no matter how hair brained, is a moral truth as if you have some sort of lock on morals and values.
BTW re: your ironic comments about "fellow fishermen". LOL. Bank maggots no longer?
-
For goods that lose value over time, it just does not make sense to keep collecting tax.........
If its the transaction - buying and selling action that gets counted then tax should be collected from many transactions on craigslist and fb marketplace - there are many expensive items too, but its harder to enforce, so govt willingly turned a blind eye? people doing intraday trading should be paying lots of taxes (ofcourse they incur losses too) but if they make crazy profits they can get away with it, thanks to tax loopholes on stock trading.
I totally understand for assets that makes profit, you tax on that profit - with the property example here, when its sold and if you make a profit, you should pay tax on that profit and not the entire purchase price - just like stocks or gold, why is it different for different commodity
just because its been going on for years does not make it "right"
well there is bound to be problems with any taxation approach. It turns out, I have found, that PST on used vehicles is 12% which is higher than the PST on new vehicles under $55k which is 7%. Since GST doesn't apply to used personal property the Province is just picking up the extra 5% the Feds charge on new vehicles. However I'd also note that EVs are tax exempt. Tax policy is being used to further government and social goals. Likewise with the use of an average to set the transfer price for tax (FWIW the Income tax also has rules for transfer values for tax purposes). Absolute averages often don't exist in the real world. Blue book values also include condition of the car such as does it have body damage or need new brakes and tires - yada yada. However the gov't willaccept an independent valuation of the vehicle and if that does just cost $150 then the recovery value of that amount is $1,250 ($150/12%). That's not bad! I would think that someone who buys a vehicle with obvious problems knows something about it. A lot of mechanic and service shops can assess a used vehicle for any required or recommended maintenance.
-
Sometimes I shake my head how JT keeps getting voted in.
Then I read posts like yours and Ralph's and it all makes sense.
LOL! That's so funny. Trudeau gets blamed for everything! ( 'Everything seems broken!')He had and has nothing to do with the PST! He wasn't even in politics when BC first scrapped the PST and then brought it back 2 years later!
As I mentioned above the Provincial Liberals dumped the PST to join the HST system. There was such a backlash that Gordon Campbell resigned and left politics and there was a referendum on the PST vs the HST. The people of BC overwhelming voted the PST back in as it was before it was wound down.
https://ballotpedia.org/British_Columbia_HST_Referendum,_2011
(https://ballotpedia.org/British_Columbia_HST_Referendum,_2011)
How did you vote or did you?
The Globe and Mail called the PST " A Profoundly Stupid Tax!"
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/small-business/sb-money/why-pst-in-bc-marks-return-of-a-profoundly-stupid-tax/article10854872/ (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/small-business/sb-money/why-pst-in-bc-marks-return-of-a-profoundly-stupid-tax/article10854872/)
-
LOL! That's so funny. Trudeau gets blamed for everything! ( 'Everything seems broken!')He had and has nothing to do with the PST! He wasn't even in politics when BC first scrapped the PST and then brought it back 2 years later!
As I mentioned above the Provincial Liberals dumped the PST to join the HST system. There was such a backlash that Gordon Campbell resigned and left politics and there was a referendum on the PST vs the HST. The people of BC overwhelming voted the PST back in as it was before it was wound down.
https://ballotpedia.org/British_Columbia_HST_Referendum,_2011
(https://ballotpedia.org/British_Columbia_HST_Referendum,_2011)
How did you vote or did you?
The Globe and Mail called the PST " A Profoundly Stupid Tax!"
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/small-business/sb-money/why-pst-in-bc-marks-return-of-a-profoundly-stupid-tax/article10854872/ (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/small-business/sb-money/why-pst-in-bc-marks-return-of-a-profoundly-stupid-tax/article10854872/)
There you go again changing the subject and sidestepping the issue at hand. I never implied for a second that JT had anything to do with the PST. You are more like him then you realize. Always trying to deflect negative attention...which is what you did there.
My original post in this thread was not to engage you anyways. Most people here stopped engaging in conversation with you a long time ago, but I'm pretty sure you haven't noticed that yet.
Most regular common folk don't want to be friends with people who are always defending corrupt and unethical governments, judges, and lawmakers, but that's what you do.
I should know better than to engage with you in conversation.
-
are you guys still arguing with the accountant lol
-
There you go again changing the subject and sidestepping the issue at hand. I never implied for a second that JT had anything to do with the PST. You are more like him then you realize. Always trying to deflect negative attention...which is what you did there.
Unlike JT I was not a drama teacher, nor am I a drama queen like you.
BTW you brought his name into the discussion, not me.
-
It's pretty clear superbobby doesn't mean anything he says and is using this thread to demonstrate his fealty to the Conservatives. A partisan hack, plain and simple.
Now back to fishing.
-
(https://scontent.fyvr3-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/128602828_3623281911064813_2958392682290994690_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p552x414&_nc_cat=100&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=LgUulW1RImUAX9zwWER&_nc_ht=scontent.fyvr3-1.fna&oh=00_AfAz8KhQVxYGDILFMWJX9RAS1kOh1nrneS0y7b_o82x6wQ&oe=640FDCA6)
-
The cabin fever is strong this year ::)
-
(https://scontent.fyvr3-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/128602828_3623281911064813_2958392682290994690_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p552x414&_nc_cat=100&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=LgUulW1RImUAX9zwWER&_nc_ht=scontent.fyvr3-1.fna&oh=00_AfAz8KhQVxYGDILFMWJX9RAS1kOh1nrneS0y7b_o82x6wQ&oe=640FDCA6)
I think this was a good discussion with a vigorous exchange of opinions. People were very well behaved for the most part. Some people have very strong opinions and from time to time let their passions run away with them. But then me and one other person have a history that goes beyond 20 years. There is obviously a clash there. The amendment on determining used vehicle values for tax purposes does have the potential to negatively effect some people who buy a vehicle in good faith at an apparent bargain. That's got to be acknowledged. Sometimes sales value may be 'under reported' but that's no reason to throw out the baby with the bath water.
-
There have been a number of significant turning points in the course of human history...
What if Hitler didn't invade the Soviet Union in 1941. Maybe Germany would have won the war.
What if Obama didn't publically mock Trump at a 2011 White House Correspondents Dinner. Maybe Trump wouldn't have run for the US presidency.
But then me and one other person have a history that goes beyond 20 years. There is obviously a clash there.
What if you had of acknowledged that there weren't sockeye in Maria Slough... :)
-
There have been a number of significant turning points in the course of human history...
What if Hitler didn't invade the Soviet Union in 1941. Maybe Germany would have won the war.
What if Obama didn't publically mock Trump at a 2011 White House Correspondents Dinner. Maybe Trump wouldn't have run for the US presidency.
What if you had of acknowledged that there weren't sockeye in Maria Slough... :)
Hahah....I dont know the history, but this made me laugh :D
-
There have been a number of significant turning points in the course of human history...
What if you had of acknowledged that there weren't sockeye in Maria Slough... :)
I suppose that if a butterfly had flapped its wings close to the Soviet Embassy in East Berlin at about the same time, Russia may not have invaded the Ukraine.
but I don't have to acknowledge anything;
Fish Stocks
Historically, Maria Slough and its tributaries supported populations of sockeye, coho, chum, pink and chinook salmon. Maria Slough supports a unique red chinook population. Chinook broodstock are collected 2.5 km upstream of the highway for the Inches Creek Hatchery. Recently, the only species reported in Hicks Creek have been coho and chum. Hicks Creek is a satellite of the Chehalis Hatchery.
Lower Fraser Valley Streams Strategic Review Vol 1. 1999 pg.3-338
Fraser River Action Plan
Habitat and Enhnacement Branch
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
-
Just to put things to rest about the sockeye in Maria Slough.
https://youtu.be/0bGrgJr9JgE
Clearly, this is a sockeye from Maria Slough. Case closed.
-
Just to put things to rest about the sockeye in Maria Slough.
https://youtu.be/0bGrgJr9JgE
Clearly, this is a sockeye from Maria Slough. Case closed.
🤣
I'm not sure where the sockeye in Maria Slough discussion came from, but I was actually just looking at a fish trap report from the mid 80s from there not long ago. Here is a screenshot of it. Check out the dates of coho spawn timing.
(https://i.imgur.com/BA99UqA.jpg)
Anyway, I can split the topic a bit later if the sockeye discussion continues. I actually haven't really anything in this thread, just thought I'd throw up that last image for fun lol...
-
🤣
Anyway, I can split the topic a bit later if the sockeye discussion continues. I actually haven't really anything in this thread, just thought I'd throw up that last image for fun lol...
what about the butterfly?
-
I found an interesting story that is worth rehashing this topic
The full story is here:
https://globalnews.ca/news/9724277/bc-pst-used-vehicle-private-sale/
I want to highlight one paragraph that just floored me.
"According to B.C.’s tax rules, if the appraised value of the vehicle is lower than the average wholesale value – the greater amount of the appraised value and the purchase price are used to calculate PST"
So what that is saying and in the case of the guy in THIS story......even if you pay for an appraisal that proves it's worth less....ICBC still makes you bend over to take it up the you know what.
I stand by what I said before. This is corrupted to the point of unbelief and is beyond me how ICBC gets away with this.
Edit: It was refreshing to actually see the Mainstream News cover this story. Doesn't happen much anymore.....
-
I suggest that you are misunderstanding.
If you read the Provincial Sales Tax Act (I provided the link earlier) or this notice from ICBC https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/taxes/sales-taxes/publications/notice-2022-005-pst-on-motor-vehicles-purchased-at-private-sales-or-imported-from-outside-canada.pdf it all makes perfect sense.
It’s not corrupt, nor is it sodomy.
-
First, this has got nothing to do with ICBC other than ICBC administers vehicle transfers and collects the tax. The Ministry of finance for BC sets the tax and the regulations.
Second, no it's not corrupt, at least not on the face of it. The bigger question is it fair or equitable. At least in the sense the regulation is set so that people who buy cars in private sales can't escape taxes that people who buy at a public retailer have to pay it's fair. Is it fair to the guy who paid more than the 'average' price' for that vehicle. Since he bought the car I guess it is fair. He wanted the car more than the average buyer.
-
I see the Kool-Aid is still flowing faster than the mighty Fraser.
-
The bigger question is it fair or equitable.
I'm not going to argue with your other points because you won't listen anyways..... but here is some first hand information that I have got from more than one ICBC employee.
So it is first hand information from more than one source. Should be good enough for even you Ralph....right?
They use Book 1 to value taxation
They use Book 2 to value CLAIMs.
And Book 1 and 2 don't match up in numbers....
One example given to me by an ICBC employee was the make, year, model, and condition (similar KMs) were exactly same....with less than a thousand dollars difference in options.
The taxation value on vehicle 1 was just a hair under $40 k.
The same make, model, year, and condition (similar KMs) came in a week later by someone else for a CLAIM.
The claim amount paid to the customer was approx. $35500
It is no secret that even ICBC employees admit that their is one value for taxes and another value (lesser) for claims. It's not even arguable. There are 2 books that each have different prices at ICBC.
Another employee admitted to me that it can be a struggle to work for ICBC. He told me that all the employees there know that the corruption is so deep that it's hard to go home at night with any integrity about their jobs. But there are also some that just bury their heads in the sand and collect their paycheck. This is first hand information...
-
Robert, Gee! I really don't know what point you are making other than you talked with 2 people who work with ICBC who told you there are at least 2 different ways to value a vehicle. I think that's already been discussed above re; the Black book and the blue book of vehicle valuation.
Carfax, Autotrader also have valuation tables on line. Entering the info for one of my vehicles Carfax indicates the 'sell' value in a private sale as 9,000 to 11,000 vs Autotraders range of 13,000 to 15,000. Quite a range between the 2 let alone within their own estimate.
As far as corruption does are you familiar with the expression :" You keep using that work I don't think it means what you think it means."
BTW I know people who work at ICBC too.
I know your mind won't change. I have no interest in changing it. I can change my mind. Once quite some years ago I defended your intelligence. I wouldn't do that now.
-
Robert, Gee! I really don't know what point you are making other than you talked with 2 people who work with ICBC who told you there are at least 2 different ways to value a vehicle. I think that's already been discussed above re; the Black book and the blue book of vehicle valuation.
Carfax, Autotrader also have valuation tables on line. Entering the info for one of my vehicles Carfax indicates the 'sell' value in a private sale as 9,000 to 11,000 vs Autotraders range of 13,000 to 15,000. Quite a range between the 2 let alone within their own estimate.
As far as corruption does are you familiar with the expression :" You keep using that work I don't think it means what you think it means."
BTW I know people who work at ICBC too.
I know your mind won't change. I have no interest in changing it. I can change my mind. Once quite some years ago I defended your intelligence. I wouldn't do that now.
Like I said, I can't stop you from drinking the Kool-Aid, but even you can't deny that if I buy a used Toyota Tacoma for $35000....get taxed for $38000 (according to BOOK 1), smash it up 2 weeks later and only get $33000 for the claim amount (BOOK 2).....come on Ralph.....even a lefty like you has to be able to see corruption with this.
-
I think you need to read the Global news story you posted again. I think you need to read the standard dictionary definition of corrupt (as an adjective or a verb) again. I think you need to check how the auto insurance industry pays claims. They basically all pay the same way. You also don't seem to be aware that this is nothing new. They don't payout what it costs to buy an equivalent vehicle of the same make etc. It's been that way for decades. i don't the government or the courts have been able to change it.
-
They don't payout what it costs to buy an equivalent vehicle of the same make etc.
So at least you see this....therefore you agree that they don't pay out what it costs to buy an equivalent vehicle of the same make, but you are perfectly ok with them taxing me on a higher value than what I actually paid....and then....you tell me that I don't know the definition of 'corrupt'? Are you kidding me?
Ralphy....I am trying to have a serious conversation with you but it's clear that the matrix got you and we know which color pill you took.
-
Seriously SuperBobby, instead of coming on a fishing website to rant, you should write a letter to your MLA outlining your concerns and your proposed solution. The more letters they get the more likely they will do something. But go easy on the corruption claims... because they will either laugh and delete your email or sue you for libel. Or better yet run for office so you can make the changes yourself.
Good luck with your rabbit hole.
-
Seriously SuperBobby, instead of coming on a fishing website to rant, you should write a letter to your MLA outlining your concerns and your proposed solution. The more letters they get the more likely they will do something. But go easy on the corruption claims... because they will either laugh and delete your email or sue you for libel. Or better yet run for office so you can make the changes yourself.
Good luck with your rabbit hole.
Amen & +1.
Time to turn superbobby off.