Federal Tax Reform: A Serious CTF Proposal

[Pat Coghlan]

A Death tax is not a progressive tax on income which is what we are talking about. I can see a death tax being effective in culling wealth from those that had the ingenuity to accumulate some but I can't still can't see that a progressive income tax structure does that. If it did there would be no need for a death tax, such as exists in the US. You are, in essence, arguing for the necessity of a death tax to do what you say a progressive income tax already accomplishes.

I'm saying 2 things:

• That all the wealth of a country shouldn't become too concentrated; and
  
• That we shouldn't tax salaried individuals at rates which are twice those for capital gains and dividends.
  

You are in effect saying that those without a lot of money are being taxed on their income so money doesn't accumulate in their hands. That is my conclusion.

One of the two things I repeated above. Yes.

Then you have already lost sight of the concept of equal treatment under the law. The law must recognize only an individual, not a poor individual or a rich individual or a black individual or a white individual nor should it attempt to make laws that make them equal. They are not equal. They never will be equal and no law will make them equal.

I would call pension splitting "tweaking" and nothing more, and agree with you that our current taxation system is an abomination.

Pension splitting is not a tweak. CRA has, for 40 years, bent over backwards to ensure that people can't split income (attribution rules etc.). Suddenly, retirees can split all their pension income right down the middle.

This gem won't apply exclusively to retirement income forever, I predict.

Edited January 31, 2008 by Pat Coghlan

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Taxes have no function other than as a revenue stream for the government. Those who desire the government to tax and spend enslave the entire population to this antiquated financially oppressive method.

Income tax needs to be repealed on the grounds of its infringement upon our citizens disposable income. If we are to be a free trading consumer society then the government is impeding our ability to compete in that market by unfairly restricting our disposable family incomes with taxation.

[Pliny]

I'm saying 2 things:

• That all the wealth of a country shouldn't become too concentrated; and
  
• That we shouldn't tax salaried individuals at rates which are twice those for capital gains and dividends.
  

One of the two things I repeated above. Yes.i.e'(Wealth should not become concentrated.)

Ah! We agree then that the poor must remain poor under a progressive income tax structure. And I see your logic to equalize the playing field even further by attempting to keep anyone who should attempt to rise to the monied class by somehow dodging the clutches of a progressive income tax and accumulating some savings, God forbid, with a capital gains and dividend tax twice that of the salaried individual who may be the very one attempting to invest but now is blocked by a punitive tax. Let's close the door on the poor and middle class entirely.

I see the thing you are trying to avoid but wealth already is concentrated and the situation rather than being resolved is being perpetuated by an oppressive taxation system.

You would have to define what you mean by wealth becoming too concentrated. The concept is vague and general. I get the idea that the rich will be greedy and hog all the wealth and the rest of the people will be poor.

So how does that concept differ from the existing system, except you yourself propose being even more punitive in ensuring wealth accumulation is impossible. Very oppressive. What of people's hopes and dreams of economic security? I know - it just occurred to me - bigger and improved social programs.

Will there be any incentive left to produce and create wealth? Being comfortable and being able to pay your taxes and your bills is not what life's about but it sounds like it is your life.

Pension splitting is not a tweak. CRA has, for 40 years, bent over backwards to ensure that people can't split income (attribution rules etc.). Suddenly, retirees can split all their pension income right down the middle.

This gem won't apply exclusively to retirement income forever, I predict.

Suddenly, there is no punishment for splitting pension income. Thank you for removing that ball and chain, CRA. You call it a gem, as though it were a gift, which indicates to me, you are looking at the tax system from the point of view of being an administrator or jailer and not from the point of view of the individual subject to it's administration.

Sorry, to me it is a tweak and anything but the elimination of the current income tax system is a tweak.

I will be honest and admit to ignorance of the exact ramifications of pension splitting. I will have to read more about it but in knowing the CRA they do not give "gems" away at no cost to the taxpayer. It is my guess there is some benefit to the tax collector but I will have to broaden my understanding of it before I present it as more than an opinion.

[Renegade]

Well, one could argue that rebalancing wealth is necessary to mitigate the social upheaval that unchecked poverty produces. Or one could posit that those who benefit the greatest in an economy do so, in part, because of the nature of state expenditures and investments; thus the beneficiaries are obliged to return some of their gains to their benefactor. These are but two arguments one can employ to justify progressive taxation. While there are other rationales, the two I’ve offered should suffice to consider the other side flat taxing.

For instance, if one holds that everyone should pay an equal share of income towards taxation, then it stands to reason that each should share equally in the “spoils” of the state. Each payer should then be able to claim equivalent benefit for how their taxes are spent. Inevitably, this opens the door to claims of injustice.

Visionseeker, it is interesting justifications you propose, however I'd like to see some backup that the suppositions are true.

For example, how do we know that wealth redistribution is a better mechanism for mitigating social upheaval then investing in police forces. Why for example are there societies like Hong Kong which do very little wealth restribution but yet doesn't seem in danger of social upheaval.

Your other justification is that the benefit is somehow the result of state expenditures and investments. How do you know? Perhaps in some cases it is true, but there maybe others where the state had nothing to do with income generated. It would seem that the more sensible way for the state to make wise expenditures and invesments is to charge for use of that infrastructure so that beneficiaries are the ones who pay back the state's outlay.

[Pat Coghlan]

Ah! We agree then that the poor must remain poor under a progressive income tax structure. And I see your logic to equalize the playing field even further by attempting to keep anyone who should attempt to rise to the monied class by somehow dodging the clutches of a progressive income tax and accumulating some savings, God forbid, with a capital gains and dividend tax twice that of the salaried individual who may be the very one attempting to invest but now is blocked by a punitive tax. Let's close the door on the poor and middle class entirely.

I'm open to a flatter tax (just 2 brackets works for me - applied to family income) but you seem to have non flexibility: flat tax only.

In your flat tax scenario, exactly who does it apply to (individuals, businesses) and would you want it applied to all forms of income, including capital gains and dividends?

I see the thing you are trying to avoid but wealth already is concentrated and the situation rather than being resolved is being perpetuated by an oppressive taxation system.

On this we agree.

You would have to define what you mean by wealth becoming too concentrated. The concept is vague and general. I get the idea that the rich will be greedy and hog all the wealth and the rest of the people will be poor.

So how does that concept differ from the existing system, except you yourself propose being even more punitive in ensuring wealth accumulation is impossible. Very oppressive. What of people's hopes and dreams of economic security? I know - it just occurred to me - bigger and improved social programs.

Did I ever say that the 2 tax brackets I proposed would be 10% and 70%? How about just 15% and 25%? Is this going to make wealth accumulation impossible?

What I want to get away from is the current situation in which wages are taxed at double the rate of investments.

Suddenly, there is no punishment for splitting pension income. Thank you for removing that ball and chain, CRA. You call it a gem, as though it were a gift, which indicates to me, you are looking at the tax system from the point of view of being an administrator or jailer and not from the point of view of the individual subject to it's administration.

Hey, it's the biggest reform in over 40 years. I call it a gem.

Sorry, to me it is a tweak and anything but the elimination of the current income tax system is a tweak.

I will be honest and admit to ignorance of the exact ramifications of pension splitting. I will have to read more about it but in knowing the CRA they do not give "gems" away at no cost to the taxpayer. It is my guess there is some benefit to the tax collector but I will have to broaden my understanding of it before I present it as more than an opinion.

How can you have so many opinions on the tax system without a comprehensive understanding of the mechanics of how it disadvantages families in which one spouse earns most or all of the income?

Edited January 31, 2008 by Pat Coghlan

[Hydraboss]

Our tax system IS based on ability to pay, at least in theory. And that is wrong.

I disagree that the rich made their cash on their own. Bill Gates did not become worth $50B without the brain power of tens of thousands of software engineers and other professionals. And those tens of thousands were paid for their efforts. Or did they work for free?

While I don't have all the answers, there is something fundamentally wrong when a salaried employee supporting a familiy can pay the highest rate of tax on his/her income, while multi-millionaires are paying rates which are only half as high on their capital gain and dividend income. If you don't believe in the rate disparity, then welcome to the single-rate camp.

Assume we both work as plumbers making $40/hour.

You work 12 hours a week and I work 70 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, OT @ 1.5X over 40 hours.

You gross $24,960.00/year and I gross $145,600.00/year.

We both do the same job and have the same opportunity to find a job that allows us the hours. The only difference is I work more.

In your estimation, I should be penalized and have to pay a substantially higher tax rate because I work harder, therefore subsidizing your laziness.

Yep....your tax system is WAY more fair.

Welcome to socialism.

[Pat Coghlan]

Assume we both work as plumbers making $40/hour.

You work 12 hours a week and I work 70 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, OT @ 1.5X over 40 hours.

You gross $24,960.00/year and I gross $145,600.00/year.

We both do the same job and have the same opportunity to find a job that allows us the hours. The only difference is I work more.

In your estimation, I should be penalized and have to pay a substantially higher tax rate because I work harder, therefore subsidizing your laziness.

Yep....your tax system is WAY more fair.

Welcome to socialism.

Your argument has merit, but history teaches us that governments will take more from those that have more as they have more ability to pay. I'm just suggesting that there be fewer brackets (2) and those with more income pay only a slightly higher rate, which I think is more practical than a flat rate.

If you change your example so that the higher income person brings in $1M, I certainly think that income should be subject to a higher rate. I just don't like the games they play with a $40K vs a $70K income vis-a-vis different tax rates.

[Hydraboss]

If you change your example so that the higher income person brings in $1M, I certainly think that income should be subject to a higher rate. I just don't like the games they play with a $40K vs a $70K income vis-a-vis different tax rates.

Why on Earth should the amount of income determine the tax rate? How does $1M affect fairness? Assume 20% flat tax (for simplicity sake). The guy making $40K pays $8,000 tax but the guy making $1M pays $200,000!!! Why would you increase the tax load on the second guy who is paying 5 times as much in tax as the first guy grosses in a year?

Years ago I was talking with one of my Dad's buddies that owned a new car dealership. He said that the reason he quit being a manager and started his own dealership was because of his last and final boss.

It went somewhat like this:

When he went in for his interview, the owner asked him how much he wanted for pay. Cam said he wanted 10% of net sales. The owner thought this was a hell of a deal and agreed (most managers were netting around 15%). The first year they did about $600,000 in net sales, so Cam made $60,000. Again, the owner was happier than hell.

The second year, though, the dealership made almost $1.2 million. It was then that the owner called Cam into his office and told him they would have to renegotiate. When Cam asked why, the owner simply stated, "I've never paid a General Sales Manager $120,000 and I'm not going to start now." Cam quit the same day.

So what was the problem? Who cares if Cam made $120,000? That meant that the owner was pulling in $1.08 million instead of $540,000 the year before.

So in the end, the harder Cam worked and the more successful he made the company, the less he received (percentage-wise). Now what if we said that the owner was only going to pay 10% on the first $600,000 and then 5% on the rest? What if he gave the balance to the salesman working the floor - just cause? So the manager makes $90,000 instead of $120,000 and others get what he worked for? Would you be okay with that? What if you were Cam?

[blueblood]

Uhm, yes. Brilliant and pointed reply... NOT!

Can you not see the irony in your own "rich" farmer tax revolt? The rich simply say "we'll take our money elsewhere". The poor say "we'll take our country".

As for...

That sounds a lot like "Are there no prisons? No work houses?"

I'm guessing you're a AWMS suffer.

The rich white farmers left Zimbabwe, no were forced out because of catering to the poor. How's that country doing these days??

[Renegade]

Our tax system IS based on ability to pay, at least in theory.

IMO, it is not a principle upon which the tax system is base. It is a poliitcally correct justification being used by the tax system administrators to extort as much as they can.

I disagree that the rich made their cash on their own. Bill Gates did not become worth $50B without the brain power of tens of thousands of software engineers and other professionals.

Those software engineers and other professionals made a free trade of their services for pay with Bill Gates. Bill Gates net worth is a result of making successful free trades with his employees and his customers. It makes no difference if his wealth is accumulated through his personal efforts in developing the software or through shrewd trades, in either case, he EARNED it.

While I don't have all the answers, there is something fundamentally wrong when a salaried employee supporting a familiy can pay the highest rate of tax on his/her income, while multi-millionaires are paying rates which are only half as high on their capital gain and dividend income.

You assume that the only principle in the tax system is "ability to pay". It is not. There are many other factors including collectability, and impact. If for example the captial gains tax were increased significantly, it becomes more attractive for investors to invest somewhere else outside Canada. The net result maybe an outflow of capital, regardless of how "fair" you think the increase is.

[Hydraboss]

If for example the captial gains tax were increased significantly, it becomes more attractive for investors to invest somewhere else outside Canada. The net result maybe an outflow of capital, regardless of how "fair" you think the increase is.

This is already being witnessed in Alberta thanks to the new royalty rates. Big oil are cancelling contracts left and right and are either looking at Sask or the US.

[Pat Coghlan]

Why on Earth should the amount of income determine the tax rate? How does $1M affect fairness? Assume 20% flat tax (for simplicity sake). The guy making $40K pays $8,000 tax but the guy making $1M pays $200,000!!! Why would you increase the tax load on the second guy who is paying 5 times as much in tax as the first guy grosses in a year?

I guess that, fundamentally, I believe in a certain amount of income redistribution. I don't have a problem with taking a slightly higher portion of a high six-figure income than a low two-figure one.

I suppose I am for a flat tax up to a certain income level, while you feel that a flat tax should apply to all income.

Bill Gates has a net worth of over $50B. When he dies, it normally would be subject to a 55% estate tax. That would leave only $20B for his heirs. In fact, he's going to leave the bulk of it to his foundation to be put to charitable purposes.

There is also one other thing. If we change the existing system to make it flatter, I would expect that families would pay less tax on their existing incomes. This means that the difference would have to be made up somewhere else, presumably those forms of income that currently receive preferential treatment: capital gains and dividends.

To summarize, I'd like to see:

• Just two tax brackets on earned incomes, one low, one slightly higher;
  
• Reduced tax advantage for investment income, enjoyed mostly by wealthy individuals.
  

In your flat tax world, would you treat employment income and investment income the same, or would the flat rate apply to ALL income?

[Topaz]

Why not pay taxes on money you SPEND instead of what you MAKE??? keep the GST as part of the tax when spending.

[Pliny]

How can you have so many opinions on the tax system without a comprehensive understanding of the mechanics of how it disadvantages families in which one spouse earns most or all of the income?

It used to benefit the family. But - that is not fair, and rightly so. It is not fair or just. You are correct it is an income reditribution plan and coupled with inflation keeps people from accumulating wealth. As long as I understand it's purpose I don't really need to know all the mechanics of it. I do not believe the evolution of economic structure occurred out of malice. It occurred out of fear, hope, promise, power and control with a little bit of greed and "Good intentions".

I do not support any form of income tax, a flat tax is a fairer and equal treatment.

[Pliny]

Why not pay taxes on money you SPEND instead of what you MAKE??? keep the GST as part of the tax when spending.

That would be a better form of taxation. You, as an individual, would have more control over not only your ability to save what you earn, and spend how you like, but control over your life. Now that would take you being more responsible as well.

[White Doors]

This is already being witnessed in Alberta thanks to the new royalty rates. Big oil are cancelling contracts left and right and are either looking at Sask or the US.

1 - Royalties are not a tax.

2 - Didn't suncor just announce a new 20 billion investment in the oilsands the other day?

[White Doors]

I guess that, fundamentally, I believe in a certain amount of income redistribution. I don't have a problem with taking a slightly higher portion of a high six-figure income than a low two-figure one.

I suppose I am for a flat tax up to a certain income level, while you feel that a flat tax should apply to all income.

Bill Gates has a net worth of over $50B. When he dies, it normally would be subject to a 55% estate tax. That would leave only $20B for his heirs. In fact, he's going to leave the bulk of it to his foundation to be put to charitable purposes.

There is also one other thing. If we change the existing system to make it flatter, I would expect that families would pay less tax on their existing incomes. This means that the difference would have to be made up somewhere else, presumably those forms of income that currently receive preferential treatment: capital gains and dividends.

To summarize, I'd like to see:

• Just two tax brackets on earned incomes, one low, one slightly higher;
  
• Reduced tax advantage for investment income, enjoyed mostly by wealthy individuals.
  

In your flat tax world, would you treat employment income and investment income the same, or would the flat rate apply to ALL income?

Incresing the tax rate on investments and dividends is sure to make our society more 'fair' at the same time it makes it poor. We want to encourage people who take risks, not discourage them.

Capitalism thrives on entrepreneurs taking risks. If we take back any potential rewards, our economy will sufffer as a whole. Increasing the taxes on dividends and investments is one of the stupidest ideas there are.

Even the far left whackos of Europe have figured this one out.

Simply put, Entrepreneurs are much more valuable to society than salaried employees. Society's collectivism envy should not hold sway and change this.

[Pat Coghlan]

Simply put, Entrepreneurs are much more valuable to society than salaried employees. Society's collectivism envy should not hold sway and change this.

The need for entrepreneurs does not justify much lower tax rates on capital gains and dividends vs employment income. You just need to ensure "fair" rates of tax.

I think you've bought into the scam that we need to be unfair to wage earners in order to be fair to entrepreneurs.

It is small businesses that provide the most employment in Canada; the farms, the hair salons, the restaurants, landscapers, construction etc. I suspect that it is not these businesses that benefit most from low capital gains and dividend tax rates.

A person with $10M in blue chip stock who receives $700K in dividends each year isn't creating a job for you (or me), so why is the dividend tax rate roughly half the rate paid by a salaried engineer supporting a family?

As another poster pointed out, many of the non-salary forms of incomes can be harder for the tax man to get at, which may be the bigger reason as to why the government doesn't go after them more aggressively. The reason is NOT because it will result in fewer landscapers and construction companies.

[White Doors]

The need for entrepreneurs does not justify much lower tax rates on capital gains and dividends vs employment income. You just need to ensure "fair" rates of tax.

I think you've bought into the scam that we need to be unfair to wage earners in order to be fair to entrepreneurs.

It is small businesses that provide the most employment in Canada; the farms, the hair salons, the restaurants, landscapers, construction etc. I suspect that it is not these businesses that benefit most from low capital gains and dividend tax rates.

A person with $10M in blue chip stock who receives $700K in dividends each year isn't creating a job for you (or me), so why is the dividend tax rate roughly half the rate paid by a salaried engineer supporting a family?

As another poster pointed out, many of the non-salary forms of incomes can be harder for the tax man to get at, which may be the bigger reason as to why the government doesn't go after them more aggressively. The reason is NOT because it will result in fewer landscapers and construction companies.

Do you not invest in RRSP's? those tax rates affect your retirement income much more than anything else.

You seem to be a centrist in thought, but your capital gains and dividend tax ideas are straight out of the left field Pat.

What is wrong with wealthy people being able to keep their wealth?

If they couldn't keep it, do you think more or less people would strive to become wealthy?

The wealthiest 10% of Canada already pay more than 50% of the taxes and you want them to pay more. Exctly how much more should they be expected to pay?

politics based on envy is never good politics.

Why don't people quit worrying about what their neighbour has in compared to themselves and just worry about their own needs. You have no idea what people go through to get where they are so stop judging people by the car in their driveway and take care of yourself.

[Pat Coghlan]

It used to benefit the family. But - that is not fair, and rightly so. It is not fair or just. You are correct it is an income reditribution plan and coupled with inflation keeps people from accumulating wealth. As long as I understand it's purpose I don't really need to know all the mechanics of it. I do not believe the evolution of economic structure occurred out of malice. It occurred out of fear, hope, promise, power and control with a little bit of greed and "Good intentions".

I do not support any form of income tax, a flat tax is a fairer and equal treatment.

It depends what you mean by "benefits the family". Do you mean vs singles? Families still have an advantage - rightly so, given the increased number of mouths to feed - but there are families that have a tax advantage versus other families, even when incomes are identical. The families with the advantage are those with a nice 50/50 split in the incomes between each spouse/pensioner.

[Pliny]

It depends what you mean by "benefits the family". Do you mean vs singles? Families still have an advantage - rightly so, given the increased number of mouths to feed - but there are families that have a tax advantage versus other families, even when incomes are identical. The families with the advantage are those with a nice 50/50 split in the incomes between each spouse/pensioner.

The issue of tax advantages to me is not of any consequence and is simply changing tax laws to grease squeaky wheels, appease special interests or buy partisan favor. The overall purpose is wealth redistribution among those caught in the hamster wheel. If you manage to scrape together some cash you immediately become suspect and CRA is knocking on your door. If you have enough cash to buy accountants and lawyers to protect your assets from government legally you may escape this artificial economic form of entrapment.

I was a Union member for some years of my life. I didn't know anything about economics, government or politics. I didn't care either. It wasn't important enough, as I was comfortable and shielded from the ups and downs of the economy. Unfortunately, I didn't realize how much I was at the mercy of the economy. Although the business I was in was secure because it was part of the municipality and unlike enterprises affected by the business cycle and subject to the demand of their services or product, always had the benefit of the law to collect taxes to pay their employees, whether the services were demanded or not. Pretty comfortable and ignorant.

[Pat Coghlan]

Do you not invest in RRSP's? those tax rates affect your retirement income much more than anything else.

You seem to be a centrist in thought, but your capital gains and dividend tax ideas are straight out of the left field Pat.

What is wrong with wealthy people being able to keep their wealth?

If they couldn't keep it, do you think more or less people would strive to become wealthy?

The wealthiest 10% of Canada already pay more than 50% of the taxes and you want them to pay more. Exctly how much more should they be expected to pay?

politics based on envy is never good politics.

Why don't people quit worrying about what their neighbour has in compared to themselves and just worry about their own needs. You have no idea what people go through to get where they are so stop judging people by the car in their driveway and take care of yourself.

I take a system-level view of taxation, and feel the system is failing salaried wage earners, especially in families in which one spouse earns most or all of the income. Two families with idential combined incomes qualify for identical benefit payments, but their tax liabilities can differ by up to $15,000.

BTW, RRSPs gains are not taxed while they remain in the plan.

Wealthy families are entitled to a certain amount of wealth. I just don't feel that most wealth should simply accrue to families that already have acquired wealth, due in large part to the fact that their investments are treated more favourably by the tax system than the salaries of wage earners.

[Hydraboss]

There should only be one tax with one tax bracket. Either an income source tax or a consumption tax. Choose.

The percentage is not important for the sake of this discussion...20%, 30%, 99%...that is for the tax department and government to decide with voters. Why would we have anything else? Some posters don't think wealth should be concentrated with the few; why not? Others feel that investments should be taxed lower; why? By the way, investment in the stock market and business DOES create jobs. Where the hell does everyone think the corporate money comes from to hire people and pay salaries? If I have enough income to invest in stock, then if it makes money I still get to keep 80% of it (or whatever amount). Good for me. If a company's investments aren't paying enough dividends to prevent investors from taking their money overseas or across the border, then they better do something about it. It is not the taxpayer's of Canada that should be on the hook by offering tax breaks.

It sickens me when people feel they have a right to other's earned income. If Bill Gates has $50 billion dollars, he earned it. Did he run a backhoe? No, but he took a risk with his money and was smart enough to find other people's money from investment. Doctor's don't run backhoe's either, but nobody's bitching about their income. P.S. Accountants and CEO's don't dig ditches either.

There should be no other incentive for RRSP's/GIC's/RPP's than the knowledge that you have money for retirement. No tax advantages. I'm sure someone will pipe up that "Well, if there's no tax advantage how do we ensure that people will put money away?"

Who cares? It's not my problem if people are too stupid to look into the future. Incidentally, if those people are truly that stupid they aren't putting any money away tax advantage or no tax advantage. Don't like it? Then make it a mandatory deduction at source (but no tax deferral).

I know this isn't a touchy-feely-liberal-do-gooder approach to things. "Society is judged by how it treats it's weakest links." Not in my world. Society should be judged by how many stupid people it has, not by how much of a nanny-state it is. "But the poor wage earners aren't getting ahead!" Again, who cares? Because Billy-Bob can't make $50,000 a year is not my concern. Not everyone is destined for greatness. Some people will be fry cooks until they are promoted to grill. That's life...deal with it.

Progressive taxation is regressive. Socialism.

Edited February 1, 2008 by Hydraboss

[White Doors]

I take a system-level view of taxation, and feel the system is failing salaried wage earners, especially in families in which one spouse earns most or all of the income. Two families with idential combined incomes qualify for identical benefit payments, but their tax liabilities can differ by up to $15,000.

BTW, RRSPs gains are not taxed while they remain in the plan.

Wealthy families are entitled to a certain amount of wealth. I just don't feel that most wealth should simply accrue to families that already have acquired wealth, due in large part to the fact that their investments are treated more favourably by the tax system than the salaries of wage earners.

Yes, I know RRSP's are not taxed until you take them out.

What happens if you move your RRSP's to a dividend portfolio and try to live off of that? You would be taking away seniors incomes by increasing the taxes on dividend income.

Look, if you think that the taxes on salaried employees are so terrible compared to those of business owener, start your own business if you think it's such a great deal.

Simple really.

Wealthy people are entitled to a certain level of wealth and Pat Coughlin will be right along once he deems what that certain level is. Sounds like a place I would like to live....

[White Doors]

A big mistake that people make when looking at 'low income earners' and 'wealthy' people in statistics, from year to year, is to assume that each bracket are the same people from year to year.

I used to be a low income earner, middle income and now my family is high income salaried earners.

Stats Can has caught me in nearly all the tax brackets from time to time but they present it as if I was still in the low income I was 15 years ago.

You make less when you first enter the workforce, as you should.

I believe in a flat tax with a high initial exemption. Or even two tax brackets, much like this proposal.

It would go a LONG way to improving Canada's competitive edge. It is coming too, it's just a matter of time.

The competition in the years to come will be over talent, not resources.

the countries that make it as easy as possible to get ahead financially will win.

We all want to be free and being financialy independent goes a along way in gaining personal freedom in the society we live. A worthy goal in my opinion.