Renegade

If the sample that answered the poll are representative of the board, it would seem that there is quite a spread of how much we each pay in income tax. I'm a little surprised that given the prevailing resentment against income tax; I would have though more people would have been on the upper end of how much they pay.

Welcome Back, SS. The GST cut was a bad idea. It was popular and it helped Harper get elected, but it is bad economics. They shoud not reduce the GST any further than already comitted. My wish is that with time that the extend the GST to all items (no exemptions) and increase the GST, but they should reduce income taxes accordingly. I' d be ok with an income tax cut, however the CPC wants to do it their way. They probably won't do it in the same way as the Liberals proposed. Nope. Unfarily discriminates against non-parents and parents with older kids. Deported to where? Why should the unemployed be forced to work? They paid their EI, now that they have a claim, forced working may interfere with their ability to find a job in their profession. If by "bums" you mean welfare recipients, that is a different story, but that falls under provincial conrol not federal.

Using that line alone won't give you an accurate picture, not without considering the fact that some people may have earned enough to pay CPP from self-employment but not enough to pay taxes. That depends what you mean by accurate. I wouldn't consider CPP contributions to be the same as income taxes. CPP are contributions directed to a specific purpose not general revenues. In the end using line 435 is simple and unambiguous even if it doesn't capture all the various taxes we pay.

Since there seems to be a very mixed perspective on the board on the effectiveness of taxes, as well as different perceptions on how much is "too much" for taxes, I thought it would be interesting to poll the board, esp since it is tax time and the numbers are fresh in our minds. Feel free to post the amount if you so wish, or for anonomity just answer the poll. Please use line 435 of your 2005 return (ie your total payable). This does not mean your refund or balance due. It means the total amount of income taxes you have been assessed. It would be interesting to see how much of the postions we take wrt taxes are a result of the amount we actually pay.

While I agree with you regarding overpopulation, it is not the point at all. No one except the builders and workers give a damn they are creating new housing units. What has got people up in arms is that once people move in, it makes it much harder to enforce land claims whether right or wrong.

And why is that a good thing? People should earn their wealth, not have it handed to them by the government robbing someone else. So you are for transfer payments out of self-interest? You'd rather someone in another province foot your bill rather than move to a more productive area of the country?

But it's not a defense to say "other people are doing it too". This is a perception - not a fact. Most people take the physical and social infrastructure in our society for granted and do not take it into account when they complain about taxes. Yes, I agree many people do not take into account the services provided, but whether they are getting level of infrastructure services they have paid for depends upon the level of taxes they pay. The wealthy bear a much larger burden relative to the services they are provided. This is not because they have not taken account those services, it is because wealth distribution is also a component of the taxes collected. So they can justifiably complain about the level they are taxed at. One other point, while taxes fund some services, not all of those services are infrastructure which enhances people's ability to earn. For example OAS does not provide a service which enhance the earning power of anyone. It not the same analogy. private insurance provides the same level of coverage relative to the premium. It doesn't mix in wealth redistribution. If health insurance was run on insurance priniciples, young healthy individuals would be paying less tax because their risk of using the system is less. You're not suggesting they be reduced either. I think there are many services provided which are beyond the minimium needed. They don't benefit everyone equally, so when people pay for a service they see little or no value in they rightly complain about taxes.

Riverwind, you are making some extremely broad generalizaions here. Not all taxes pay infrastructure. Some taxes are nothing but income redistribution and are very much just overhead. With rent or a mortgage, the payors are also the beneficiaries to the extent they pay. This is not true of many taxes. For example taxes directed to healthcare primarily benefit the old and very young, because their healthcare cost are much higher than average. I agree that there are some infrastructure costs to which taxes are directed and are necessary contributor to earning, however your broad generalization needs to be qualified.

I hope you made at least $500,000 to pay a tax bill that large!!! Do you have NO expenses? Never worth every penny! Don't have to make $500k to pay that bill. Depending upon province and individual circumstances, an income of about $130,000 will generate $42000 of taxes.

Where did you get this from? Show me any evidence that a crippled two-year old is a threat to spread disease.

I never accused you of stating that homosexuals should be discrimminated against. I apologize for my choice of phrasing. I did not mean that the discussion is absurd. It is valid to discuss the origins of homosexuality as it is the origins of hetrosexuality. Also, I don't believe that a discussion of homosexuality implies that it is done on the basis to discrimminate. My reaction was based upon the multitude of use the "choice" vs nature as the baiss to somehow justify discrimmination. As that is not the nature of this thread, I aplogize for my jumping to conclusions.

Huh? You showed that homosexuals have discriminated against people who are celibate? You have done no such thing. Show me some evidence where gays have pervasive discrimination against people who are celibate. Cite some newstories, show some statistics. Something besides your say so. I agee with you here. How do you go about concluding this? Do you think that the Supreme Court of Canada was somehow inflitrated by gays who did so to persue their own interest. I agree that gays lobbied aginst legislation which they though discrimminatory against them. Did you expect any different? Do you expect any group who is being discriminated against in law not to protest that discrimination. It may be your phrasing here but I havent' a clue on what you are trying to say in this statement. What does "isolate their indifferences" mean? None of what you have stated, refutes my statement that whether gays are gay by choice or nature is irrelevant to the fact that they shouldn't be discrimminated aginst. I will accept that some gays will discrimminate, just as I accept that some whites will discriminate, just as I accept that some blacks will discrimminate. But this doesn't mean we should tolerate discrimmination from any of those groups, and we should fight it in every case, especially when it becomes instutionalized in law. Absolutely false. It is impossible to completely stamp out discrimmination, however it should be fought in all its forms in order to be contained. Permiiting existing discrimmination only justifies retatialitory discrimmination leading to a more confrontational and divisive society.

People in deperate circumstances do deperate things. With no access to charity the crime rate will go up as will the cost of policing and prisons. I agree but that is only true to a certain extent and there are diminishing returns. Once a minimal level of service is provided for, then there needs to be a determination whether it is more cost effective to spend on policing and corrections rather than charity.

Every benefits from charity so it is not in societies interest to let the greedy and self aborbed segment of the population get way without paying their share. Can you elaborate on what you mean by "Every[one] beneifts". How does everyone benefit? People who donate to charity because it makes them feel good. The recepients obviously benefit. Outside that, how does everyone else benefit?

Leafless, what is your point here? That discrimmination is a normal part of the behaviour of the majority and that they discriminate agains all kinds of groups so we should tolerate that discrimmination?

I'm not assuming that you don't conserve. Everyone conserves to a certain point. The point I was trying to make is that you should be on the hook for the electricity you consume, not anyone else. It's got nothing to do with if you are poor or middle class or rich. Electricty prices in canada are far less than many places and those lower prices actually promote overconsumption. Also I did a comparison of your numbers to mine and yours seem out of wack. My electricity consumption for all of 2005 was $673.30 (or $56.11/month on average). I've only got one bill for 2006 so far (end of Feb) for $70.68. I also got a rebate of $11.07 for overpayment of electricity from last year. This is for an entier house and I didn't spend a lot of energy (I mean mine) trying to conserve. A couple of comments, 1. It is difficult to make a comparison based upon a short period like 3 months, esp when bills are issued bi-monthly. Also because electricity usage patterns are the most in summer, comparing winter periods does not show the whole story. 2. I don't think 60$ or 70$ a month is an unreasonable cost for anyone to pay for electricity given it is pretty much essential. I would guess the amounts spent for non-essentials are far more.

Not completely true. They only don't pay taxes on on the work they do on reserves or reserve-based businesses: link

Of course they are. That is stating the obvious. Insurance companies are no different than other companies which provide for us a valuable service for which we are willing to pay. A competitive environment is requred to ensure that there is a balance between cost to the consumer and the desire to make a profit. Not really much different in insurance than other industries. I don't thinik you are talking about insurance anymore. You are taking about charity. In the case you state, if someone has a chronic or previous condition and can't afford the cost of their disibility, then if falls to the charity of society to provide for them. On a world scale many other countries have thrived (eg US, Hong Kong), without providing the same level of social services as Canadal, so if you want me to accept your supposition that Canada has thrived because of the social programs it provides, you need to provide some evidence.

It does not take much to be classed as 'high risk' - I know someone who was turned down because he admitted he was a downhill skier.The problem with private insurance is there is no accountability - insurance companies are free to deny converage to anyone and are not legally obligated to justify that denial. Furthermore, once you get turned down by one company you will likely get turned down by all others because they share information. There was a case in Ontario where an insurance company made accused a couple of burning down their own place despite the fact there was no evidence. The couple took the insurance company to court and won. However, now they cannot get insurance from any company. There are hundreds of similar stories which basically tell me that private insurance companies cannot trusted as the only means to protect people from risk - the gov't does have a role. I can see that there are defficiencies with private insurance companies providing such coverage in the current regulatory environment, however, I dont' think that justifies throwing out the model. Either the laws and regulations can be changed to address the deficiencies you have pointed out, or the government itself can be an insurance provider for those who can't get insurance otherwise. My point is that we are not following an insurance model for something which in my view is clearly insurance.

Sure - but insurance companies won't sell disability insurance to most people (or at least charge huge sums that most people cannot pay). This means that it makes sense to have government programs to help the disabled. Government's don't truly cover the risk of disability in the same way insurance does so its not like the government is providing an insurance for people who can't otherwise get disability insurance. If we want to compel people to live up to financial obligations so they dont' become a burden on society, then disabilty insurance should be mandatory. Many workplaces do make it mandatory, however this isn't done at a societal level. BTW, why do you think that insurance companies won't sell disability insurance to most people? That hasn't been my experience. I think they won't sell to a small minority who are high risk.

The whole discussion on whether gays choose to be gay or it is an innate characteristic is absurd. The fact is it doesn't matter. People choose to be married, but should we discriminate based upon their marital status. People can choose their religion, should we discriminate based upon religious status? It is completely irrelevant whether gays are gays are gay by choice or not, and the only people who make it an issue, are those who seek some basis to discrimminate.

Why? Shouldn't you be expected to bear the full cost of the energy you consume. If you can't afford it, conserve.

Quote from a person who can take care of himself. Lose half your body in a car accident tomorrow, and you'll be crying that the nanny state will ensure you are poor for the rest of your life. If it were a risk that I were to lose half my body in an accident tomorrow, do I not have some responsibility to purchase disability insurance to cover my future financial obligations?

My preference would be to fund it from a health insurance premium as opposed to general income and sales taxes. Agreed, but if it's insurance it should follow the principles of insurance. Which means premiums are based upon risk and history. If you got into a lot of accidents, your auto premium would go up. Similarly, if you have and accident free record, your premiums would stay low or lower. So if you are at high risk, due to age, or health history or other risk factors, you should pay more as with insurance. There are other ways in which it should be modeled after insurance. For example, there should be a deductable which discourages frivolious use. Also, you should have some say in the level of coverage as you do with auto insurance.

Sob stories indeed, have you ever lost a child, I lost a Grandchild at 21, a husband at29, so how are you doing. Without the OHIP I would never have paid off the bills for my Husband. I lived when there was no OHIP and I hear a lot of young spoiled brats on here who have always had everything handed to them complaining because they have to pay some taxes. It makes me sick margrace, you point out the need for a health insurance plan. I don't think anyone disputes that. What I question is why there needs to be a plan funded from taxes. If your point is that people get medical services so they shouldn't complain about the taxes. I think that is a very simplistic view. People care that they are getting the most for their money regardless if it is paid via taxes or directly via a health insurance premium. Many people pay far more in premiums than they get in benefits. It sounds like you and your family are one of those who has benefited by getting far more in benefits than has paid in pemiums or taxes, and so you consider the system valuable. But the beneifts you have derived have come at a cost to other taxpayers.