Ms. Yu, I want to thank you for your practical suggestions on some of these things.
One thing that's coming to light now.... It's funny. You can always remember these things.
A good example of this is the motivation of the government. We see Rogers right now increasing its costs for boxes for consumers. It's a story that's out there right now. What's not really talked about in the story as much is that the government has almost no motivation to intervene on this because its going to get all of the HST revenue from this. It's actually clearly identified on the bill that, when they increase it, the HST will be applied and then collected by the government. Even if we get these merchant fees reversed, if there will be new taxes on it with the HST, which appears to be the case....
There's something I forgot about, and I think I mentioned at one point that it would make Bernie Madoff blush with regard to the Ponzi scheme on how to deal with this. What's the point of all of this if we don't pass on any of the consumer savings that we're trying to get to?
I would like you to speak about how important that is. If it just turns out to be a way to increase revenue for the government, is that not defeating some of the purpose?
What we want to have is that the consumer doesn't have to pay for regressive taxes or regressive fees on these things.