Posted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 7:43 pm Post subject: MST vs. DST when referring to the HST
Like many of you in Ontario I have just received the latest mailing from Tim Hudak. In it, I noticed that he has changed his classification of the “HST” to the “DST” from his original moniker of “MST” in his earlier mailings. All of these acronyms are making my head spin, but I think the choice of acronym is an important grassroots discussion to have.
Now I must confess that when I originally saw his classification of the “HST” as “MST,” I thought that “DST” sounded a little better, that it rolled off the tongue a little easier. However, after thinking about it and discussing it with others, I came to realize that “MST” would be a better moniker to slap on the “HST.”
The use of the “D” in front of the “ST” requires us to call McGuinty by his first name when discussing his tax policies. Dalton is at best innocuous, and at worst may sound friendly to some voters.
By naming the “HST” the “MST” you will always use Dalton McGuinty’s surname when discussing him and his tax policies. “MST” would therefore more likely stick as a moniker -(e.g., the McGuinty Liberals have increased your taxes with the McGuinty sales tax).
I believe that as a general rule there is a rebuttable presumption that when we discuss the opposition leaders we should always use their surnames (e.g., Ignatieff, McGuinty). They certainly don’t hesitate to call the Prime Minister, “Harper.” As voters we like to call candidates by their first names and typically candidates like when voters call them by their given names this makes politicians more personable.
Obviously, first names will be used in certain circumstances. However, generally calling someone by their last name helps to detach the voter from whatever they may like about the individual person. Using Dalton all the time when discussing his tax, but then using McGuinty when we are discussing his policies, may confuse the message.
In the end I think using the moniker “DST” to describe the “HST” may be too cute by half. Generally politicians should always err on the side of simplicity. To me, the average voter, I think “MST” follows the Keep It Simple, Stupid (KISS) method best. Therefore, I think the “HST” should once and for all be named the “MST” by all who oppose it.
I think it's all a little silly, myself. Reducing the PST portion of the tax is far more reasonable than campaigning against the HST in its entirety.
I would agree. If you don't do that, the Liberals will just toss quotes at you where you where the PC's supported harmonization in the past. You look like a hypocrit, case closed.
The Liberals will also point to the billions of dollars the feds gave them to do this, say you are wasting money, case closed.
Say its a tax increase and you want to reduce it - thats an idea.
Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7632 votes: 21
Location: The World
Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 9:28 am Post subject:
This constant chatter about stopping the HST is the reason why Hudak lost my support briefly during the campaign.
We are not going to stop it.
Unless a WHOLE lot of Liberals cross the floor we will not even be able to address it in anything except an opposition in a majority government roll till after October 6, 2011.
They may as well campaign by promising a Unicorn in every garage, or every pot whatever floats your boat.
Reducing the PST to 5% makes it at least somewhat close to tax neutral, and that is the best we can hope for.
Unless of course we plan to make business owners bare the cost of implementing the tax in 2010 and then bare the cost again to undo it in 2012.
Klee's on this issue is the only one not living as much in fairytale land.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum