Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada is not a country with a reputation for bold experimentation. However, decades of federal-provincial compromises have successfully disproved the belief that an invoice-credit, destination-based value-added tax (VAT) is unworkable at the subnational level. Canada’s experiences with the GST, as well as with subordinate VATs like the HST and independent vats like the QST, have three important and interlinked consequences for future tax reform in Canada. First, the exact shape of provincial-level taxes is largely irrelevant to the smooth functioning of a federal VAT — although lack of provincial-federal coordination inevitably raises administrative costs. Second, the nature of a subordinate sales tax is extremely important at the provincial level. As the furor over British Columbia’s HST demonstrates, governments can’t ignore voters’ views and must retain the freedom to tailor provincial-level taxes to meet them, even when public opinion leads to suboptimal outcomes. And third, the best way Ottawa can avoid such outcomes is to provide the provinces with critical support and encouragement in the form of administrative and economic assistance. Since the federal government controls Canada’s borders, over which imports and exports flow, and administers its own sales tax, there is plenty of scope for cooperation. This paper traces the history of federal sales taxation, from the first turnover tax in 1920 right up the present-day GST, along with comprehensive examinations of regional sales tax issues in every corner of Canada, making it one of the best available summary treatments of the GST.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".