Moonbox

The numbers presented would be better demonstrated by the fact that the top 5% are paying 40% of the country's taxes, or the top 1% are paying over 20%. and yet almost every developed economy in the world uses a progressive tax system, so evidently that's not the case. Hey, I just couldn't help but notice the irony.

Fox has rubbed off on you, lol. Who said anything about liking or disliking the data? ?

I think it's fairly useless information. Feel free to tell us why it's not....?

You're explaining truisms. Holy cow indeed. ? The sky is blue. Also a fact. Where are you going with it? They don't pay the highest rate, or even come close to it. I'm not suggesting they should either. I'm saying that it's weird to focus on the top 20% when the skew is far more pronounced (and interesting) as you drill-down further up the income ladder, with the top 10% paying over half, or the top 5% paying 40%, or the top 1% paying 21%.

Yes, but that doesn't inform us on the rationale for what numbers they set the rates at, does it? You were talking about my obsession earlier. ? Your facts tell us...what, exactly? What's your point? Where are you going with this? That the top 20% pay 80% of our taxes isn't being disputed. It wasn't disputed the last time the National Post dredged it up (it's a semi-annual article for them, it seems). My argument is that focusing on the top 20% is arbitrary and amounts to smoke and mirrors. The average dude squeaking into the top 20%, or even the top 10%, isn't responsible for the lion's share of tax revenue. It's the folk at the very top. That's how the revenue is actually broken down.

So what if 20% of earners pay 80% of the taxes? What's your argument here? The rationale for the tax brackets (taxation groups, as you call them) is based on an ability to pay them - disposable income. Whether or not you usually disagree with him, you were projecting just like him. Regardless, it's not clear what your argument is, and it doesn't appear you understand mine. ?‍♂️

So what? and someone in the 50% percentile pays more than someone in the 90th percentile. Again, so what? and yet it's the primary rationale for progressive tax systems... My obsession? You sound like Fox ?.

No, I'm saying that talking about the top 20% is misdirection. The folks who squeaked in at the 20th percentile aren't wealthy and if you drill-down further you'd know that the top 10% pay 54% of income tax in Canada, and that this number skews further the higher up you go in the income ladder (something close to 25% of taxes paid by the top 1%). Nobody cries for the 1% however, so that's why the Post writes every year about the tax burden of the upper 1/5th of the population. Only in the most technical and literal sense, not in a practical or realistic one. Yes, I'm saying they don't pay what they should. My point isn't made invalid because the wealthiest people pay the lion's share of taxes. They do so because they have the lion's share of disposable income, and they still have a million ways of paying less than they could. We're an international money laundering haven for similar reasons.

Yes, Tucker Carlson, champion of freedom of speech. ?

No, the top 20% is a red herring. The top 1% or 5% even is another story. No, they really can't. They don't have access to the expertise nor do they have the disposable income to set themselves up to take advantage of those loopholes. As for what it helps, it helps shore up public finances to make people earning at the top actually pay what they're supposed to in taxes. The amount of bullshit write-offs that we can get away with as self-employed individuals is comical, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Earnings growth in Canada has also been dominated by the top 20%, with their share of overall income increasing over the last 35 years to every other quintile's detriment. Regardless, the focus on the top 20% is a distraction. The bottom end of that is nothing impressive, but still oppressively taxed. The upper echelons (the top 5%) account for a wildly disproportionate share of incomes whilst ultimately paying lower effective rates than the poor schmucks "only" earning ~$200,000/year after the tricks they can afford are accounted for. If you're merely going to raise taxes on the top 20%, you're just going to p*ss people off whilst not accomplishing much. The better approach would be to close tax loopholes and then properly fund CRA (the only government agency that actually brings income in) and ensure that the highest earners are paying reasonables rate in the first place. None of this matters, however, if we maintain a government that just blows the roof off of spending and is more and more quickly heading us towards a debt spiral.

Yes, you are talking utter nonsense. Look at the sky.

I don't think you have a point. The Prime Minister dictator is nonsense, because he can only act with parliament's support and they are elected by popular vote. Tu dis n'importe quoi.

The popular vote of parliament makes it a democracy, goof. and by the popular vote of parliament…which is elected by the popular vote of the people. Woof.

Yes, it is, and I quoted the same thing for you half a dozen times to tell you exactly what I was disputing. You've now spent several pages and pounded out numerous spastic essays (that I doubt anybody reads) insisting that I'm arguing per GDP declines aren't bad, or something. Wait...yup, that's actually what you're doing: ??? So you're telling me that 100% of 200 is less than 100% of 300? 200<300? Mon Dieu! Let's look at your smooth-brain scenario though: Ratio is 20-80 @ 200. Party 1 gets 40 Party 2 gets 160 Ratio flips 80-20, but GDP goes up to 300 Party 1 gets 240 Party 2 gets 60 Both parties have more? ?

Naw dog, that's just you making up what you want to argue with again (the whole arguing with yourself thing you've mastered). For every spastic, longwinded rant you pound out on your keyboard insisting otherwise, I can take 5 seconds to requote this, which is what I was actually arguing about: The fact that so many countries rank higher on the quality of life indices than the United States should hint that this relationship isn't as straightforward as you say... That's only true if the proportions stay the same, which...has not been the case in places like the USA. ? Why is life expectancy lower in the United States than so many other places in the world, with their higher level of resources? How many different ways does this have to be spelled out to you?

The overall size of the pie matters. Nobody is arguing against that. To say how it's divided doesn't matter is spectacularly dumb. It's part of it. ? If you die as child of starvation or malnourishment, your quality of life wasn't so hot, was it? Longevity, health, education, leisure time, safety, etc...these are all factors in quality of life.

That ship has sailed.

Sure, let's consider: 45% of 110 is less than 50% of 100, right? Right there you have mathematical proof that the above conclusion is wrong. Hyper-concentrated wealth at the top doesn't do much to improve quality of life for the population. Elon Musk isn't going to live 400,000x longer than the average millionaire, nor is he 400,000x healthier. Yes, because they're not the same thing. How are you still not getting this? ?

CBDC = Mark of the Beast, 666 Thanks for coming out Taxme. You're a real gem.

It's fascinating watching Nationalist try to reconcile all of the ways he contradicts himself, isn't it?

This is what you said: A profoundly foolish statement that can be disproven with grade 5 math. This is what I said: This is what you decided it meant: Which never happened, but here you are again, arguing with yourself. ?

No, I quoted what I disagreed with, TWICE. This: Is not: The former is another clueless gem from CdnFox that's categorically false. The latter is something nobody ever argued against, but here you are trying to debate with yourself on it anyways. ?

Great, and as an alternative, you're in lockstep with the Ayatollah Iran and the Supreme Leader of North Korea. That's some pretty potent copium you're smoking. ?

No I didn't. That's just you making shit up again. Here's what I contested: The magic of the quotation system is I can go back and directly point at your ignorant bullshitting. You need only look at places with much higher GDP like the USA falling regularly below places like Canada in quality of life and standard of living. So once again here you are, arguing with yourself and carrying on like the angry assclown that you are.