Keepitsimple

That's why I suggested an alternative marketing term called the "Progressive Fair Tax" which more accurately reflects the process.......but hey, I'm just throwing ideas out there - I'm not trying to convince people that mine is the only way - or the best way.

Good for you. I'm sure that will be crystal clear to all Canadians.

So you're saying we have to get Ontario back to where it was with Mike Harris? Finally, you're making some sense.

I gave you that point previously - that it doesn't really fit the precise definition of "flat" - but as a marketing term that everyday Canadians understand, a Progreesive Flat Tax or Progreesive Fair Tax fits the bill. Tell you what.....since we're only speculating.....why don't we do it your way! I was trying to offer some concepts - not get into a contest about the minutiae of implementation. Truth is, neither of us has all the answers. As they say - any battle plan is out the window with the first contact with the enemy.

Topaz.......funny how you started this thread on HarperPAC - but didn't offer even one peep on this "Engage Canada" anti-Harper topic - why is that? Link: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24617-unions-centre-left-interests-start-anti-harper-ad-campaign/page-3

Just like the movie Casablanca....."I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here.......".

You want to see nasty - and misleading - check out the Website for "Engage Canada" and try to find anything that supports the fact that Unions are largely behind the attacks.......and you wonder why HarperPAC was necessary? One ad that made its debut this month comes from Engage Canada, a group whose stated intent is to make the Conservative party "unelectable." Engage calls itself a non-partisan, grassroots organization, though is headed by former Liberal and NDP strategists and it counts unions among its donors. Link to Engage Canada: http://www.notthereforyou.ca/

Yes - and that's a BIG difference - AND no tax credits - although as I said, if we start with a clean slate - governments will again start bribing us with our own money. I would call it a Progressive Flat Tax (PFT) - which will of course, be "marketed" as a Progressive "Fair" Tax. I realize it doesn't fit the exact definition of "flat" but I think it's something that people could easily relate to - and it maintains the concept of "progressive" - the more you make, the more you pay.

Haven't heard back from you yet on my last post. Where were you trying to go with all this? Since it hasn't happened for over a century and there is a process in place in the unlikely event it does happen - what was your point?

Listen - my suggestion is not an ideology that I'm chained to - I just tend to lean towards a straight forward approach. The truth is if we wiped the slate clean, governments of all stripes would just start to bribe us with our own money again - and the tax system would start down the same old path of various tax credits and other abominations. But hey, it's fun to come up with ideas.

You're getting a little too granular for me. I'm dealing with concepts - not trying to plan out the exact solution. My objectives were: 1) No tax for the poor 2) No Tax Credits 3) All income is taxed at the same rate 4) The more you make, the more you pay 5) No loopholes 6) More efficient - so less tax for everyone To answer your question - if I understand correctly.....you'll tax everyone at the same rate (or a tiered rate) and then transfer money back to people. That means that poor people would have to first pay taxes - money that they can't afford......and then they get some back in a lump sum. That's a double whammy - because that lump sum will often not be spent on monthly bills to keep their heads above water.

Sure I can - we're arguing right now! ......and you're entitled to your somewhat bitter opinion.

Respectfully - something like that has not happened for over a century. Where are you trying to go with all this? What's the big deal? There was one case that came close to what you're exemplifying - where Brian Mulroney resigned in a planned manner, a leadership convention was held - Kim Campbell won - and was subsequently appointed PM by the Governor General - as outlined in the process below. So yes - if your scenario unfolded, that's what would happen.

The fishermen example is a poor one using the method I outlined - they come out pretty even because the one-year-earner will likely fall into a higher bracket for the extra $50K he earns. Anyway - it's so close it doesn't make a difference in fairness. Arguably, the guy who made all his money in one year worked harder. But it's nit-picking on the final tax bill. As for married couples and splitting incomes - I don't know......I think it's best to have uncluttered, low tax rates and let people plan their family finances accordingly.

For those that still don't understand: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-health-accord-was-a-fix-we-must-not-repeat/article17759451/

Then maybe we're on the same page? Tax on all income. No loopholes. No tax credits. The poor pay no tax. The rich pay more. But hey - too often, I've seen the Law of Unintended Circumstances come into play. So - other than putting thousands of tax accountants and CRA workers out of work, what is the downside to a "Progressive Flat Tax"?

So you think that people never voted for John A. McDonald or Louis St. Laurent - they voted for the party of their choice and found out who the leader was after the election? Is that how you think it was done back in the olden days? Don't think so. The concentration of power in the PMO is a separate issue from the one that you first raised by saying people "have been mistakenly told that we are voting for a PM". You're being extremely naive if you think that people aren't interested in who the leader of the party is - because as I said - it's about leadership. People are not as stupid as you appear to think they are. As I said - some vote for the local candidate but many vote for the party - and that party is often embodied by the leadership, policies and values that are communicated by the leader - and they hope that person will be their Prime Minister.

Not really - epends on how socialistic you want to be.......for example, there could be four tiers of flat tax. On the first $50K (over $24K) you pay 15%. On the next $50K you pay 20%. On the next $50K you pay 25%. On all additional income you pay 30%. You can juggle the figures all you want but the prime drivers are that the "income-challenged" pay no tax and everybody pays tax on all income no matter where it comes from. Add it all up - and pay your tax. No loopholes. The rich pay more - as a total - and as a percentage.

Leadership is what it's all about or you'll have a rudderless ship. People are free to vote for their local MP and in many smaller communities across Canada, that's exactly what they do because candidates tend to be known within the community. In the big cities - not so much - unless they have some star-power. People look for leaders.

Yes - that would be stupid but that's not what I said/meant. Similar to the personal exemptions that we all have today - you wouldn't pay any tax on the first $24,000.....so earning $24,001 you'd only pay tax on $1.

To answer the topic thread question - they have to do very little. As the polls show, Justin Trudeau has performed at such a miserable level that their supporters are deserting the ship in droves - seemingly headed to the NDP. One thing is fairly certain - most of those voters are so disillusioned with Trudeau's underwhelming grasp of the issues - an utter inability to elucidate any cohesive thought - that most will not be voting Liberal while he is "Leader". That said, the spotlight has not yet shone on the policies of the NDP - the details that inevitably define them as a tax & spend, insular Federal Party. Where does that leave voters on election day? I'll let everyone speculate on that - but rumours of the death of HarperLand are indeed premature. An even larger majority is not out of the question.

Doesn't anyone want to address the topical issue? Ontario's Union-based third-party attack dogs, the Working Families Coalition has now mutated to the Federal level in the form of Engage Canada. These Leftist attacks have now spawned a counter third-party organization - HarperPAC. The common element are Unions - and as we've learned in Ontario, these attack dogs will bite their master - because "it's never enough".

It's not regressive if you don't pay ANY tax on the first $24,000, for example. I love the idea of a flat tax - don't care if it's 15%, 20% or whatever - all income is taxed. Problem is - it would put thousands upon thousands of accountants and government employees out of work and for that reason alone, it won't fly.....but it's certainly not "stupid".

Depends what groups you are talking about. Here in Ontario at the provincial level, we've suffered through the "Working Families Coalition" for the past few elections - millions of dollars put forward by the Teachers' Union in anti-Conservative ads. That Left Wing and Union nastiness has now mutated to the Federal level and has led to the creation of HarperPAC..... Link: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pro-conservative-harperpac-launches-to-counter-union-backed-ads-1.3122785