Restoring Fairness is Key to NDP Platform

[Michael Hardner]

Auguste - your posts are a delight to read.

Let's see here.

I can be a little more precise.

In tax year 2002, the roughly 100,000 individuals who filed with total income assessed greater than $250,000 (income from all sources) earned, as a group, $55 billion. They paid, as a group, federal and provincial income taxes of $18 billion. (That's about 10% of all income taxes paid in Canada.)

That means they paid on average 32%. A lot less than the 60% that you said earlier. This supports your point about loopholes, though... somewhat...

Now with GST, PST, property tax and so on, this group must be paying close to half their income in taxes (government revenues of $27 billion or so). A billion here or there, which the government is unlikely to get anyway, is not going to change the federal budget.

Err... Where did the other 18 % come from ? Property tax ? GST and PST ? I don't think so.

That's at least $40K or more.

Consumption taxes are regressive, ie. the rich pay LESS tax per income than the dirty folk.

I would prefer "from you"; you would prefer "from me" so let's agree on "from us".

I'm just trying to figure out your personal stake in this argument. Do you make $250K+ ? Of course, you don't have to answer.

I'll go on record as saying I'm in the top tax bracket this year, but far under $250K. I say this in case anyone thinks I'm happy about the NDP plan because my <$15K income won't be taxed. Get it ?

Various Canadian governments combined now take more as a percentage and more in real terms of what the Canadian economy has to offer than at anytime in Canadian history.

Yet many people have the perception that governments are having trouble and that they could somehow do more before.

I think I got into an argument with another smart conservative on this, and since neither of us were economists we had to stalemate at this point.

If the tax rates are lower than they were, why is percentage of revenue higher ?

Maybe someone could answer this before we continue...

[Alliance Fanatic]

Takeanumber I think that if I work hard at what I do I should'nt be taxed to death.

So I guess that all Canada's values are is taxing the hardworking and giving that money to lazy people. I only support welfare in certain situations, but today it has more to do with laziness than anything else.

Hey takeanumber can you please define "free market" for us?

[BigGunner]

The gap between the NDP's proposed $15,000 income exemption and the current $8012 is $6988...at the federal tax rate of 16% for the bottom income tier, that is a tax cut of approximately $1100.

That might not be much to a person earning $250,000 but to just about everyone else, that amounts to nearly $100 back in their wallets at the end of the month. That makes a difference...double up on a credit card payment or some groceries, or car insurance.

[BigGunner]

Takeanumber I think that if I work hard at what I do I should'nt be taxed to death.

So I guess that all Canada's values are is taxing the hardworking and giving that money to lazy people. I only support welfare in certain situations, but today it has more to do with laziness than anything else.

Hey takeanumber can you please define "free market" for us?

Gordon Campbell wanted to crack down on so-called welfare fraud...those who were deemed employable but collecting a cheque...

only a handful were found..

The overwhelming majority of welfare recipients are on the dole for legitimate reasons, and if you think a $550 per month cheque is the high life, then you are way off base.

The NDP's tax cuts would amount to $1100 for you too, plus a roll back of GST on family essentials for the rest of your family.

[August1991]

MH, I like reading your posts too. Balanced, and make me think. (I'm sorry to skip over AF and BG posts.)

That means they paid on average 32%. A lot less than the 60% that you said earlier. This supports your point about loopholes, though... somewhat...

You're right. GST, PST, property add some 15-20%. So, we're closer to 50% (if that) rather than 60%.

Consumption taxes are regressive, ie. the rich pay LESS tax per income than the dirty folk.

"Consumption taxes" like the GST are neutral at worst. Paul Desmarais's wife and Sven Robinson's partner give alot more money to the feds through GST than I do. In addition, despite the recent car GST refund scandal in Ontario, the GST is "easier" to collect. With GSt, Canada Revenue deals with fewer collection "points" than income tax.

If the tax rates are lower than they were, why is percentage of revenue higher ?

I think the 'tax rate' refers to the 'marginal tax rate' and not the 'average or percentage tax rate'.

This is how I understand the difference. Someone on welfare receives $800 per month. The person gets a small part-time job at McDo for $40 per month. But each dollar earned means one dollar less of welfare. The 'marginal tax rate' is 100%! Now, if the person were foolish enough to accept the McDo job, the 'average tax rate' would be "only" 5% - ($40 tax on $800 income).

In the 1980s, governments lowered the marginal tax rates for rich people but not for poor people. Not surprisingly, rich people now work more and people on welfare don't look for jobs.

BTW, if you know math, "marginal" just means the derivative of a function, or dy/dx.

[takeanumber]

Takeanumber I think that if I work hard at what I do I should'nt be taxed to death.

So I guess that all Canada's values are is taxing the hardworking and giving that money to lazy people. I only support welfare in certain situations, but today it has more to do with laziness than anything else.

Hey takeanumber can you please define "free market" for us?

Free Market= Where supply is allowed to equal demand.

Things that interfere with the Free Market (in some cases):

Tax Wedges.

Quotas

Tariffs

Price Ceilings

Price Floors

Thx for trying out though.

Takeanumber I think that if I work hard at what I do I should'nt be taxed to death.

You're right. I feel terrible. You know, I cry myself to sleep every night thinking about you. You won't be able to buy that second wine cellar, or take a third trip to wine country, or, *gasp*, be able to smuggle another million dollars into your offshore trust.

Sorry, I'm just tearing up.

Listen: pay your fair share of taxes. That's all I'm saying.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't be rich. I'm saying that if you ARE rich, give other Canadians a chance to climb the social ladder too. That means paying TAXES so that kids in bad neighborhoods can go to good schools to. It means actually considering the welfare of the whole society, and not your own little block association in Cedarbrae.

Takeanumber I think that if I work hard at what I do I should'nt be taxed to death.

My MY--where is the REAL AF that I know?

So I guess that all Canada's values are is taxing the hardworking and giving that money to lazy people.

Oh, there you are.

(You almost convinced me that you weren't ignorant for a second. Whew. That was close. I was almost forced to start taking your comments as being informed!).

[Black Dog]

The discussion of consumption taxes is interesting as the rise in consumption taxes and user fees is part of the same agenda that has shifted the tax burden to the middle and low incomes.

"Consumption taxes" like the GST are neutral at worst. Paul Desmarais's wife and Sven Robinson's partner give alot more money to the feds through GST than I do.

Wrong. They are regressive by definition because low income people spend a greater portion of their income and are, therefore, hit harder by consumption taxes than the wealthy, who may pay more in total, but save a larger percentage of their income.

think the 'tax rate' refers to the 'marginal tax rate' and not the 'average or percentage tax rate'.

Marginal tax rate generallly refers to income taxes, whereas the overall tax rate can include provincial and even excise taxes.

As for the enduring myth of welfare bums: hand outs, loan guarantees and tax breaks to corporations cost canadians more than the entire welfare system. Shit, EI even runs a surplus.

[takeanumber]

As for the enduring myth of welfare bums: hand outs, loan guarantees and tax breaks to corporations cost canadians more than the entire welfare system. Shit, EI even runs a surplus

Amen.

The Fraser Institute often has a hard time getting money from corporations because of it's anti-pork stance. The corporations like the pork.

I don't get why if I get laid off, and collect EI, I'm a bum, but if a corporation gets a constant stream of pork, they're somehow terrific.

Moreover, EI is running a surplus because Martin has made it so freaking difficult for people to claim it when they really need. it. (And don't get me started about the effects of EI in the Maritimes) But yeh, wait till the next recession and see how well the 905 fares when they realize they can't get EI because of the massive restrictions. Then we'll be treated to a lecture about 'their money'.

[Michael Hardner]

"Consumption taxes" like the GST are neutral at worst. Paul Desmarais's wife and Sven Robinson's partner give alot more money to the feds through GST than I do. In addition, despite the recent car GST refund scandal in Ontario, the GST is "easier" to collect. With GSt, Canada Revenue deals with fewer collection "points" than income tax.

Right. And the well-off give less of a percentage of their income to GST/PST and property tax, I would say.

This is how I understand the difference. Someone on welfare receives $800 per month. The person gets a small part-time job at McDo for $40 per month. But each dollar earned means one dollar less of welfare. The 'marginal tax rate' is 100%! Now, if the person were foolish enough to accept the McDo job, the 'average tax rate' would be "only" 5% - ($40 tax on $800 income).

Uh... Sort of... But anyway...

In the 1980s, governments lowered the marginal tax rates for rich people but not for poor people. Not surprisingly, rich people now work more and people on welfare don't look for jobs.

BTW, if you know math, "marginal" just means the derivative of a function, or dy/dx.

Everyone works more.

The question I still have is why is the percentage of GDP taken from taxes higher when rates are lower. The answer seems to be that tax rates are higher for middle and lower income earners and lower for higher income earners.

Hmmm...

[playfullfellow]

Moreover, EI is running a surplus because Martin has made it so freaking difficult for people to claim it when they really need. it. (And don't get me started about the effects of EI in the Maritimes) But yeh, wait till the next recession and see how well the 905 fares when they realize they can't get EI because of the massive restrictions. Then we'll be treated to a lecture about 'their money'

I agree with this statement that in most cases, collecting EI has become next to impossible. Luckily, I have never had to go through the beaurocratic BS of trying to apply for EI but I do know several people that have damn near starved to death waiting to get EI. People pay for their EI and should be able to use it when the need arises. I also feel that our EI premiums should be regressive for people who do not use it. Why should I always pay the same rate (just an example) for 19 years and have never had to use it? I could pay into EI for 30 years and am still only able to collect for the same amount of time as someone who has paid into it for 1 year. It would seem a little more fair that say after 5 years of not collecting, my premiums should drop.

What scares me the most of having a rather large surplus in the EI account, some politician someday will have a brain fart and figure they should use this money somewhere else. That would really piss me off as I am sure it would others. This is the workers security against starvation during hard times.