Tax *reform*, a la joint tax return

[Topaz]

So, we get rid of the Fed government as we know it, they only run the DND, everything else goes to the provinces and the provinces has to give a % back to the DND to support. We save money by not paying out all those wages, benefits and pensions as what would be come of the parliament buildings, probably museum. The Fed workers could probably get jobs in any of the provinces as the province may have to expand themselves.

[Alta4ever]

So, we get rid of the Fed government as we know it, they only run the DND, everything else goes to the provinces and the provinces has to give a % back to the DND to support. We save money by not paying out all those wages, benefits and pensions as what would be come of the parliament buildings, probably museum. The Fed workers could probably get jobs in any of the provinces as the province may have to expand themselves.

Those descions would then be up to the province and its citizens a more dicrect form of government, with a lot less waste and dupication. Not to mention the taxes I pay federally wouldn't be funding a a social program from another province that I don't approve of. It is taxation with better representation.

[Progressive Tory]

What does "fairer" mean and why would families be more entitled to a a "fairer" system than anyone else?

I knew someone would jump on that, but when I think in terms of social programs, and yes 'families'; I see the broader picture. Most civilized countries encourage population growth in the form of procreation or immigration. It's just what they do and most governments work hard to ensure that continuity.

I suppose it's really the topic of a separate thread because it involves a great many issues. However, 'families' are an integral part of society. Maybe I'm alone in that thought. Wouldn't be the first time.

[Renegade]

I knew someone would jump on that, but when I think in terms of social programs, and yes 'families'; I see the broader picture.

Most civilized countries encourage population growth in the form of procreation or immigration. It's just what they do and most governments work hard to ensure that continuity.

What "civilized countries" encourage is not the basis of determinng what is "fair". Most "civilized countries" encourage population growth to maintain an ever-growing tax bases and a growing economy, despite the cost in environmental destruction.

IMO, a responsible "civilized" government would be encouraging us to have as few kids as possible, knowing that some will have some anyway.

As someone pointed out, the definition of "fairness" seems predicated on self-interest rather than some objective definition.

I suppose it's really the topic of a separate thread because it involves a great many issues. However, 'families' are an integral part of society. Maybe I'm alone in that thought. Wouldn't be the first time.

So are individuals who are not "families" in of themselves. Hard to know why they should be disadvantaged in tax policy so that families can be advantaged.

[Alta4ever]

I have always liked the idea of a straight consumption based tax, the more you make the more extravagent you buy the more you pay.

[Pat Coghlan]

Well I suppose it depends upon what you mean by "in similar circumstances". In your very restrictive definition a group of two individuals living together with the same aggerate incomes are considered "in similar circumstances". In the view of the government they are not "in similar circumstances" if there is not the same distribution of income between individuals.

Would you consider a "family" of a single parent making $100,000 the same a family of two parents making $100,000? By proposing joint tax returns instead of taxing "family" income is because you have a very narrow view of what is considered a family.

Pat, we've had this debate before. I agree with you that the state should be consistent on what the unit of income measurement is, whether individual or family, for both tax and benefit purposes.

There are probably many reasons. It may be that in a family where the income is distributed between two individuals they have higher costs to generate income (eg work clothing, transportation, education, etc)

If you agree that households with the same income should receive the same benefits and pay the same taxes, are you going to extend that to families which consist of a single individual? If not, why not?

Personally I think that such changes introduced for pensioners was not in the name of "fairness" but rather political pandering. So perhaps the right move is to stop income-splitting for seniors unless uniform rules were introduced for the entire taxpaying base.

I wouldn't treat the single parent the *same* as a 2-parent family with the same aggregate income. You couldn't anyway, given all the other variables (alimony, child support etc.). That's for another discussion. I would like to see all 2-parent families with the same total income have the same tax liability.

Perhaps one way to handle it is as I've said before - there should be only 2 tax brackets per family class (single, single-parent, two-parent, couples etc.). If there were only 2 tax brackets, much of the unfairness that you are concerned about would vanish.

As per the subject of this thread, we need REFORM, not more FIDDLING with tax rates.

[Hydraboss]

As Renegade said on the last page, we have had this discussion (ad nauseam) before. There seem to be three groups: those who want the status quo, those (like me) that want a version of the flat tax (because they're tired of paying everyone else's way), and those that want special status (like Pat C who wants everyone else to pay for his kids).

Alberta's tax structure has proven successful...everyone pays 10% of their earnings, no exceptions. For those of you that think the tax burden is being shifted from rich to middle class, think of this. Before tax reform, the "rich" had so many loopholes that they barely even paid tax (much like they don't federally). The more loopholes you take away, the more fairly taxes are applied.

[Alta4ever]

As Renegade said on the last page, we have had this discussion (ad nauseam) before. There seem to be three groups: those who want the status quo, those (like me) that want a version of the flat tax (because they're tired of paying everyone else's way), and those that want special status (like Pat C who wants everyone else to pay for his kids).

Alberta's tax structure has proven successful...everyone pays 10% of their earnings, no exceptions. For those of you that think the tax burden is being shifted from rich to middle class, think of this. Before tax reform, the "rich" had so many loopholes that they barely even paid tax (much like they don't federally). The more loopholes you take away, the more fairly taxes are applied.

What is it with this country they still can't bring themselves to the though that Alberta and its policies have made itself sucessful, thye always to one pethetic whine........it was the oil, but have troubles looking next door to us and seeing the results of real socialist policy the birthplace of the CCP and the NDP....Saskatchewan!

[Smallc]

Saskatchewan!

You mean the province with the fastest growing economy in Canada?

[Alta4ever]

You mean the province with the fastest growing economy in Canada?

Actually that is manitoba, but close. No the one that just elected a conservative Brad wall government, the one that is finnally starting to climb out of the NDP imposed darkness.

[punked]

What is it with this country they still can't bring themselves to the though that Alberta and its policies have made itself sucessful, thye always to one pethetic whine........it was the oil, but have troubles looking next door to us and seeing the results of real socialist policy the birthplace of the CCP and the NDP....Saskatchewan!

Isn't there tax system a mirror of Alberta? Except 15% tax at 110 000 dollars and the lowest end is exempt for taxes?

[Smallc]

Actually that is manitoba, but close.

No, we switched places midway in the year. When oil drilling started to take of in Saskatchewan, they pulled ahead of us. The downturn brought both Manitoba and Saskatchewan down about 1 - 1.5% though.

Brad Wall seems ok though. He's very cooperative...much like our own Premier (even though he's a...gasp...social democrat).

Edited January 27, 2009 by Smallc

[Alta4ever]

Isn't there tax system a mirror of Alberta? Except 15% tax at 110 000 dollars and the lowest end is exempt for taxes?

Nope Alberta is the only flat tax province in the country.

[punked]

Nope Alberta is the only flat tax province in the country.

I understand there are three marginal rates in Sask the lowest end I think under 12 000 pay nothing then from 12 000-110 000 pay the same as Alberta and 110 000 and up pay 15% I thought that was their tax rates. A mirror of Albertas.

[Alta4ever]

No, we switched places midway in the year. When oil drilling started to take of in Saskatchewan, they pulled ahead of us. The downturn brought both Manitoba and Saskatchewan down about 1 - 1.5% though.

That was a quick switch at the end of November MB was at 4.9% and Sask was at 3.9%, that was really quick. I'll have to give those i know there a hard time when I am back in April.

[Alta4ever]

I understand there are three marginal rates in Sask the lowest end I think under 12 000 pay nothing then from 12 000-110 000 pay the same as Alberta and 110 000 and up pay 15% I thought that was their tax rates. A mirror of Albertas.

Their are no marginal tax rates in Alberta it is just 10%.

[punked]

Their are no marginal tax rates in Alberta it is just 10%.

I understand that but if you were to pick a province who mirrored Alberta it would be Sask becuase 80% pay what Alberta pays they just didn't want to make the lowest of the low bear a huge burden.

Edited January 27, 2009 by punked

[Alta4ever]

I understand that but if you were to pick a province who mirrored Alberta it would be Sask becuase 80% pay what Alberta pays they just didn't want to make the lowest of the low bear a huge burden.

Please define what is a huge burden? What is 10% of 24,000 minus the basic exemption?

[Smallc]

That was a quick switch at the end of November MB was at 4.9% and Sask was at 3.9%, that was really quick.

Really? I guess my information may be wrong? Where did you learn that?

[Alta4ever]

Really? I guess my information may be wrong? Where did you learn that?

I read it in the globe and mail, back then, I think I was in Winnipeg at the time.

[punked]

Please define what is a huge burden? What is 10% of 24,000 minus the basic exemption?

10% of 12000 is 1200 dollars although you have to remember they earn 250 dollars a week. That is more then a Months salary. Although if you earn 100 000 dollars they pay half of what they earn in a week.

Edited January 27, 2009 by punked

[Smallc]

I read it in the globe and mail, back then, I think I was in Winnipeg at the time.

I must have missed it. I do know that for this year, the position is switched. Manitoba will grow at 2.4% and Saskatchewan at about 3.8% (though they are slowing significantly with prices dropping...as is our northern half).

[Alta4ever]

Please define what is a huge burden? What is 10% of 24,000 minus the basic exemption?

With dpendands the 2008 exemption is about $16,000.

So 16,000 minus 24,000 is $8000x0.10 is $800.

So just figure out what% of the income that is 800/24000x100= 3.3% of total income, so again I ask what huge burden is that. Funny to watch that % get closer to 10% the more someone makes though.

[punked]

With dpendands the 2008 exemption is about $16,000.

So 16,000 minus 24,000 is $8000x0.10 is $800.

So just figure out what% of the income that is 800/24000x100= 3.3% of total income, so again I ask what huge burden is that. Funny to watch that % get closer to 10% the more someone makes though.

This is not what we are talking about was saying Sask has the closes tax system to Alberta in Canada and you seem to think there is something wrong with Sask.

Edited January 27, 2009 by punked

[Alta4ever]

This is not what we are talking about was saying Sask has the closes tax system to Alberta in Canada and you seem to think there is something wrong with Sask.

You were whining about the huge burden we put on our poor with a 10% flat tax. Also you were tring to call Sask marginal tax rate the same as Alberta flat tax system.