MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2918540495 · doi:10.11575/prism/32042

A Tale of Two Provinces: An Analysis of the Implementation of the Harmonized Sales Tax in British Columbia and Ontario

2017· dissertation· en· W2918540495 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Braden Thorvaldson

Notice bibliographique

RevuePRISM (University of Calgary) · 2017
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomaineBusiness, Management and Accounting
ThématiqueTaxation and Legal Issues
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSales taxGeographyBusinessPolitical scienceDouble taxationFinanceAd valorem tax

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

This paper analyzes the question of which conditions need to be present to increase the likelihood of passing economic or tax reform legislation. This is important because in many cases, the world now is very different from the one 30 years ago. Due to the internet, outsourcing of production from first world to third world countries, and a vast array of trade agreements with other countries, the world economy has changed. The economic and tax regulations that govern our provinces and our country need to change with it. There are largescale economic and tax changes that need to be made to make Canada competitive in the world market, and it will be difficult to pass legislation without approval from the Canadian public. This paper will provide suggestions on how to make it more likely that the legislation will pass. The literature review showed that for a taxation system to be effective, it should be simple, economically efficient, equitable, and predictable. Tax reforms should not be rushed in the name of political expediency, and they should be designed to far outlast the people that crafted and implemented them. The paper examines several federal and provincial reports commissioned on tax and economic policy topics by governments and their recommendations. A report is considered a success if the government adopted the report's recommendations. The main conclusion is that if a report is presented over a year before the next election, the report is much more likely to have its recommendations implemented, as the government does not have to worry about any backlash from the policy affecting their chance at re‐election. Particular attention is paid to the BC and Ontario HST implementations, which occurred on July 1, 2010 in both provinces, and resulted in the HST being adopted in Ontario and rolled back in British Columbia in 2013. The important differences between Ontario and BC's implementation 5 of the harmonized sales tax was that Ontario had been planning the move for a longer time than British Columbia and was able to craft a more comprehensive policy as a result. Ontario provided more short‐term tax cuts and payments to their at‐risk population than British Columbia did, gave their population more of a warning about their plan to implement the HST, and over time, Ontarians moved on to other topics. Another factor in the difference in results was the BC Recall and Initiative Act, which allows a citizen to propose an amendment to a piece of legislation or to propose new legislation if they have the signatures of 10% of registered voters in each electoral district. This gave anti‐HST groups a concrete goal to work towards, and they succeeded in passing that benchmark with ease. Once that benchmark was passed, the HST was doomed in BC. The HST became disastrous to support, and the BC Liberal government put the legislation up to a referendum to avoid the potential political fallout of using their majority to keep the HST in place. The paper concludes with some recommendations on how to make it more likely to pass large‐scale economic and tax legislation. These recommendations include not “springing” large‐scale policy changes on an unsuspecting population, creating a report to give non‐partisan recommendations for solving the problem, engaging with stakeholders and/or the public to gain outside perspective on the topic, and being transparent and up‐front with constituents about what the policy is, what it does, and how it can benefit them.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,038
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,375

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,010
Tête enseignante GPT0,224
Écart entre enseignants0,214 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2017
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePRISM (University of Calgary)Même sujetTaxation and Legal IssuesTravaux en français237 207