blueblood

How does a flat tax punish the poor and working class? They are charged at the same rate, not the same amount of dollars. The rich provide an environment for the working class to work in. Not everyone can work for the state (well maybe in the USSR, but that didn't work out too well). I'm pretty sure lower taxes did not cause the great depression. My link

Like I said socialist is subjective, no need to get knickers in a knot. The beauty of a flat tax is that the more money you make the more money you keep. The person who is making 100,000,000 a year is already contributing to society. Odds are someone of a wealth of that magnitude is heavily investing in companies, is buying all sorts of crap which helps out the economy, has piles of money in the bank which increases bank liquidity, and odds are employs some workers. Would you not say that that person is contributing to society. By taking his money away from him in taxes means that one of those examples is going to take a hit. Finally there is incentive with a flat tax, with less and less being taken, there is more incentive to produce more as a person becomes more wealthy. As you know, under the extreme example in Russia this did not happen, and we know the rest of the story. Yours and mine definition of a role the gov't has to play is probably different. People on the right (my) side of thinking want that role as small as possible so that less money is taken. I don't know how big you want that role. I have already quoted that the 90's had the US greatest economic expansion, and discussing that further is redundant. In Ireland in the late 90's/2000's they slashed taxes and went from a basketcase to an economic powerhouse.

Sorry corn has to be an option, energy demands of the world are continuing to grow. The problem isn't going to be "dirty energy" it's going to be "affordable energy". The richer the developing world gets, the more energy they need. Canada is a net exporter of grains, biofuels make grains more expensive. Why would we not want to maximize the value of our exports?

Being as CEO's are hired by boards of directors, it's management that sets the wages, not the CEO's themselves, so I'm not sure that analogy will fly. As much as some people can't wrap their heads around it, CEO's are ultimately accountable to the board. For your example their boards pick CEO's, and the CEO's make decisions about management, management states a wage for what the burger flippers get. The other restaurants do something similar and that sets the market wage. The problem is there are too many burger flippers/unskilled labour to justify CEO caliber wages, hence the barely above minimum wage. The CEO pay might be an "old boys network", but that is the going rate of what CEO's are getting paid.

Really, since when is a flat federal corporate rate of 15% higher than the 22% proposed by the NDP?? When is my flat tax of 15% (which according to you is the median tax rate) higher than 44%, 35%, etc. Where are my tax increases? Then you shouldn't be asking my number and assigning labels if you aren't going to state your opinion. Or are you just scared that you honestly do like higher taxes and higher spending and don't want to be labelled as a socialist? So my posts are "garbage". I can accuse you, because you are dodging what you think tax rates/spending should be. If your rates are honestly lower than mine, you would have no problem posting it. Since you have a problem posting it, that creates an air of suspicion.

How am I far to the left of the NDP, please explain that to me I need a laugh. I'm saying tax hikes are bad and anyone justifying raising taxes because they are a cash and spend liberal has the calling card of a socialist. I think I can call bs that 13% is your number, being as your left of center and trying to lump me in with that crap line of thinking, your proposed tax rate is higher. You probably like boat loads of gov't services, and don't mind paying high taxes, I get it its an Ontario/Quebec thing. I've been completely honest with how I put the tax rate, you can be also completely honest and accept the fact that you are IMO a socialist (socialist being subjective). Ah, but I threw in a line, crossing it in my books is socialism. If it makes you feel any better, those calling for a 5% income tax rate would call me a socialist, and I could care less. It's like Stephen Harper, in Canada he's an ultra right neo-con, and in the states he would be viewed as a socialist. That term is subjective deal with it. If you don't like being tagged as a socialist, your problem not mine. Lets see what your ideal tax rate/spending policies and be honest about it, or are you being a coward because you don't want to be labelled as a socialist. If your going to ask for my opinion on it, at least have the guts to put down your opinion and defend it. I don't agree with Punked 95% of the time, but at least he had the guts to lay down a tax rate and defend it, and has no problem with being a socialist.

So?? They have their fat pay because that is what they negotiated with their contracts. The fact that CEO's get such large pay tells me there aren't enough CEO's in the world and the board of directors at companies of that size are willing to pay large amounts of compensation to attract the most qualified people to work at their company. It's also why the federal gov't wastes so much money because they will never attract the caliber of managers the private industry will thanks to their soviet system of pay. It's not paper, it's one of the most accountable methods of hiring/supervising management. If the CEO is underperforming, that person is canned. The board of directors is also accountable to shareholders, if the company is going the wrong direction the shareholders can vote to clean house. As things stand, a 20 million dollar salary for CEO of large companies has yet to be rejected by either shareholders or boards of directors. Corporations are by far the most accountable systems of operations of that size. They don't have to know about technology, they have to know how to manage. Technology has helped companies become more efficient and perform better. How has the bonus structure led to poor decision making? Based on what? You hear about a few CEO's who have been turfed because their company is underperforming, they get their pay/bonuses that are legally entitled to them, and all of a sudden all CEO's are bad. The majority of CEO's that run efficient companies that do make money are still getting paid the big bucks. The CEO of Potashcorp got paid 19 million in compensation last year. GM the last couple years went through CEO's faster than some people go through socks. You tell me how a company is supposed to make money by being forced to loan money out to white trash so they can have their house they can't afford. The CEO's job is to deliver profits, they found a way, and got as much money as they could. The CEO's were trying to make the best out of a bad situation, in your words that is greedy. The CRA forced those companies to make decisions they otherwise wouldn't make, the CEO's did their best to make money in spite of that, apparently that's greedy. The gov't pays its managers 90% less, who has more capable managers the gov't or the private sector? Those high earning CEO's run companies that make billions of dollars the honest way, those low earning managers at the gov't waste billions of dollars that they collect pretty much at gunpoint. That tells me that a) Pay has been justified based on performance b)There is a large demand for CEOs. Wrap this around your head, imagine for a second that kids going to University instead of wasting their time in some Liberal Arts/Science program went to a commerce program instead. There would be a CEO pool large enough to spur large competition for jobs, and being that board of directors/shareholders wanting to make money would now have an opportunity to lower salaries as there is more competition for CEO positions.

What the hell are you talking about? Who wouldn't want a 6% income tax. If I had a choice b/w a 6% income tax and 44%, guess which one I'm taking. I stated flat tax over and over again, which is set at the median rate of the highest to lowest tax rates. Corporate rates should be frozen at 15%. Spending should be froze, and tax cuts occur as the economy grows (which over time happens consistently). Socialism and Capitalism are shades of grey, if you don't understand that your problem not mine. I have a line where I think taxes should be at, crossing that line gets the brand socialism. You obviously are over that line, hence the tag socialism. The NDP has garbage policies and 80% of the country rejects them, are 80% of people lazy minded as well? Since your an NDP supporter, you must think so. Dropping taxes has been proven over and over again to be more prosperous for an economy and that results in a better life for everyone. If you think the government knows how to spend money, by all means cut them a cheque. Once again your not seeing the forest through the trees, there is a line between paying the operating costs of government and wandering through the lands of socialism. Operating costs are not socialism no matter how much you want it to be. And like I said, that line is subjective. You Ontario/Quebec people and your tax the crap out of everything, hows that been working out there?

The founding fathers want low taxes. Tariffs are a tax, whether you believe it or not. The founding fathers wanted the smallest gov't possible, Obama is doing the exact opposite, hence the tea party demonstrations in the US. Ho hum "The U.S experiences its longest period of economic expansion during the decade. Personal incomes doubled from the recession in 1990, and there was higher productivity overall. After the 1996 Welfare Reform Act there was a reduction of poverty,[2] and the Wall Street stock exchange stayed over the 10,500 mark from 1999 to 2001." My link Reagan set the stage with his slash the tax and all clinton had to do was sit back and enjoy the ride. This is why the NDP will never get power is because if their idiotic mindset that people who contribute should be punished. I know that lower taxes lead to increased prosperity, the Irish know that to a T. The fact that you think soaking people for 95% tax not only shows you are clueless in economics, it shows you think people are too stupid to know what to do with their money. Jack thinks so too and wonders why 80% of the country reject his policies. Better crack open an economics textbook. Good thing for me I have a diploma in agribusiness loaded up with management, commerce, and economics. Anybody who thinks that people who have finally made it should be taxed 95% have no clue what they are talking about when it comes to economics.

The NDP platform has across the board 22% federal corporate tax rate. Links have been provided earlier on in the thread. The going federal corporate rate is 11% for small corporate businesses and 15% regular in 2012. 44% is the total personal income tax someone who makes over 100K will contribute (both federally and provincially combined) Those are facts deal with it.

Tariffs are taxes, they hinder the economy the same way and the consumer pays more for goods regardless. There are export tariffs and import tariffs, all the money goes to the gov't. The less money that goes to the gov't the better. Remember I'm in the camp that wants to pay as little tax as possible. You think a 95% tax rate for people and business's/corporations with a net income of over 100K is good for an economy. Reagan's tax slash, helped set the stage for the economic boom of the 90's which is where the longest period of economic expansion took place. Buddy get your head out of the history books and take a commerce and an economics class.

I said what my ideal tax rate was, it was in an earlier post in this thread. You are justifying tax hikes, I'll ask you again PLEASE EXPLAIN TO US WHY TAX HIKES ARE A GOOD THING FOR AN ECONOMY??? 22% corporate tax what the NDP is proposing and 44% tax on the highest income bracket is a HIGH rate of tax and needs to come down.

Your the one justifying a tax hike, explain why? Current taxes are high. If I was an American, the cost to service Obama's fantasy would undoubtly result in high taxes. Does that answer your question?

If it's party policy, why is it not in the platform? Upping the federal rate from 15% to 22% is one way to put the kibosh on prosperity. The party platform did not say anything about small business's. As far as i'm concerned, that guy could be blowing smoke out of his ass.

Nice to know your reading comprehension is up to par, please point out where I want tariffs... Last time I checked the NDP wanted to open up NAFTA, who's against free trade again??? being as I want less tariffs and less taxes... And you want the US to turn into the USSR, da comrade?

I've indicated high taxes are too much, and that's already been clarified. Here's an idea, you tell me why corporate taxes should be at 22% at the federal level, and why top bracket income tax should be 44%

So??? Welcome to the world of competition. There are a lot of big companies and there are few highly qualified CEO's to run them. All CEO pay is board approved. Yes they are more qualified than 30 yrs ago, larger companies to manage, knew tech and knowledge, that sort of thing. Like I said those investment and financial industry companies have to compete with other industries to hire the CEO's with the best qualifications. Those investment and financial companies were well run prior to the crap hitting the fan with mortgage backed securities as a result of the CRA. Blame the gov't, not the CEO's for trying to cover their ass for being forced to loan money out to trash. If you cut the pay and bonuses in half, you can bet your ass that any CEO worth his salt would be looking at another company for work. Welcome to the world of competition.

Ideally, you want a low flat tax rate. As the economy grows and the tax pool grows, taxes should be cut. Spending should be low. What Obama is doing is throwing money around, which is going to have to in effect raise taxes. That's not good. Over time in the long haul, tax bases get larger and larger. The problem is gov't spending. Spending levels should remain flat and only increased due to inflation. But as a country grows, the taxes should be getting lower and lower. That is a good thing.

Show me in the platform

I didn't agree with Haper's tax hike, and thought it was "evil". Reagan for the umpteenth time DROPPED taxes. That 6 to 8% is an example from MH. If that was a tax rate (I wish I had a 6% tax rate), I would be angry if it got bumped up 2% points considering I would have to rebudget the business. For the umpteenth time, I am opposed to tax hikes, the government during the early 2000's dropped taxes and collected revenues from an expanding economy. What a wonderful concept!

I don't think you quite get capitalism, the government has to exist and it has a cost of operating, and that cost must be paid. However, there is a line between paying for operating costs, and an adventure into socialism land, that line is also subjective, and its up to the voters of a country to pick a government that has a particular definition of where that line is (or in the NDP's case what line?). There is an argument in here that states that capitalism and socialism are not black and white, but shades of grey. If capitalism is white and socialism is black, mine has a very whitish look to it, and if my line is crossed, I call that socialism.

Now your moving the goalposts, the Americans pay X tax. With Obama's spending, they will be paying X + Y, because the US doesn't offer very many services and is one of the more efficient governments. People will see that as a tax hike and say they have high taxes. High taxes is subjective, advocating a tax hike is advocating for higher taxes. Why would you come back at the lower rate, you are the one justifying a tax hike, not me. Personally I'd prefer a flat tax that everybody pays the same, with a rate that is median to the high income tax bracket and the low income tax bracket. Corporate taxes also flat at the small business tax rate. Let the slashing of services and waste begin.

But upping that tax rate moves it closer and closer that way. Upping the tax rate takes money from me and the government decides what to do with it. Is that not socialism?

I call high taxation evil. The NDP upping corporate tax up from 15% in 2012 to 22% is evil. 44% tax on people making over 100K is evil. I disagree with HIGH corporate taxes and HIGH taxes in general. I agree with tax cuts. Anybody in their right mind would like to see a negative tax rate, that's just common sense. Had you said you could get a negative tax rate, but the tradeoff is that we're imposing a 30% export tariff on oil, well then I would obviously be against it. You framed the context as the person getting free money. Anybody with half a brain wants free money.