[Debate] In BC, should HST be abolished?

Question

In my English 12 class, we are doing a debate on whether the newly introduced HST should be stopped or be sustained.

After doing a little research, we will be allowed to have notes in our hands when we do the debate, so I would like some points and facts for each negative and positive side.

Thank you!

Answer 1

The government says the HST will create jobs. Greater taxation doesn't create employment... it only undermines the purchasing power of the consumer, which in turn weakens the economy. Anyone purchasing a home will pay HST on realtor commissions, home inspections, lawyer fees, etc. that could add up to another $2000 on a $350,000 property. Students will pay more for supplies and clothing previously exempt from the PST. The HST could be struck down by the courts as unconstitutional because the BC legislature never passed legislation to implement it. The Liberal government lied to the voters during the election campaign by failing to mention a new tax would be implemented once they got into power. If any jobs are going to be created by the HST, they will be bureaucratic ones, and the last thing we need is more government. I can't think of a single thing the HST (read: BST) is good for except "no good" and "good for nothing".

Answer 2

It's being constitutionally challenged in court.



All I hear from people explaining the HST are the words "could" and "should", and not "will" nor "shall". I'm convinced they don't know what they're talking about, and that they aren't certain it's going to help the province, and the taxpayers are the ones that are going to take it up the a*s. It's going to cost the Liberals their jobs, and god help me, I hope that the NDP aren't going to win, because they're even more clueless than the Liberals.



We should force Gordon Campbell to pay HST on all those free olympic tickets given to his MLAs, costing more than 1 million dollars.



Since the introduction of the HST, sales on homes have decreased 30%.

Answer 3

The affirmative/government/pro side, will probably be talking about how compulsory voting, goes against free will, etc. removes our freedom. They might issue like some sort of abolishing compulsory voting in favor or promoting voting through advertising campaigns to go with a softer clash. I think you should be all out against, and here are arguments that I might use: 1. Not as many people are voting as much as before, it is in the best interests of the country to make people vote. 2. It makes sure that the voting will be done by THE MAJORITY rather than just the same people who vote every year, instead it gets everyones votes because its compulsory. 3. You can argue that it's civic duty for the people and it is important for the benefit of society. The clash here will be CIVIL DUTY (opposition) vs. CIVIL RIGHT (its a choice).

Answer 4

-The money the government will receive will stay neutral because since the tax is higher people will buy less



-jobs will be reduced since contractors will have to layoff workers since they will finish less jobs since people won't be willing to buy home improvements because of the cost



-gas prices being higher will mean that people will drive less resulting in no need of maintenance workers