Smallc Posted February 26, 2011 Report Posted February 26, 2011 (edited) You've inflated every singe number. According to the Canada Revenue Agency Payroll Deductions Online Calculator, someone making 45K per year in Ontario will pay just over 22% of their income in taxes, EI, and CPP. That doesn't even take into account a single tax credit. Also, HST is not 15% on Ontario and does not cover many things that people buy. If you make less than a certain amount you get all HST (or GST depending on where you live) back. There are earned income tax credits, medical credits, fitness credits, the list goes on and on. There is no way that the average Canadian pays over 42% of the their income in taxes, as the CRA claims. The Fraser Institute is lying, and you have bought into the lie. Edited February 26, 2011 by Smallc Quote
Scotty Posted February 26, 2011 Report Posted February 26, 2011 You've inflated every singe number. According to the Canada Revenue Agency Payroll Deductions Online Calculator, someone making 45K per year in Ontario will pay just over 22% of their income in taxes, EI, and CPP. That doesn't even take into account a single tax credit. Also, HST is not 15% on Ontario and does not cover many things that people buy. If you make less than a certain amount you get all HST (or GST depending on where you live) back. There are earned income tax credits, medical credits, fitness credits, the list goes on and on. There is no way that the average Canadian pays over 42% of the their income in taxes, as the CRA claims. The Fraser Institute is lying, and you have bought into the lie. I wish you would just stop talking about the Fraser Institute. You've already admitted you don't read or listen to anything they say, and have never bothered to attempt to validate anything they say. Your knee-jerk reactionary dismissal is silly and unconvincing. I did NOT inflate anything. I took 20% as the tax rate, not the 30% top rate. I took the average provincial tax which is about 10% and that brings us up to 30%. I took a relatively mid-sized house with average municipal taxes in an urban area. Yes, the HST isn't on EVERYTHING but it's on all the big ticket items, including fuel and heating and electricity an manufactured goods. You're right in that its now 13% not 15 since the tories lowered the GST but that's still 13% on most of what you buy. If its on HALF of what you buy that adds 6 1/2% to your total taxes right there. Re the unreasonableness of Tax Freedom Day. This is not something the Fraser Institute invented. There are figures for a number of countries here Tax Freedom Day Now, by the way, since you apparently are unwilling to do anything to validate the facts behind your opinions I did your work for you, to some extent. As the Left leaning Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has been quoted as criticizing the methodology of the Fraser Institute on Tax Freedom Day I went to that organization's web site to explore its criticisms and found the following. The institute's own numbers show that, for low-income earners, Tax Freedom Day would arrive in late February; for the huge group of those who straddle the middle range of incomes, Tax Freedom Day would arrive by mid-April. So what they're actually saying is not that the Fraser Institute's figures are necessarily wrong in all things, but that the inclusion of the wealthier income groups distorts the picture. Which, I think, is a valid criticism. But one could also say that inclusion of very low income earners also distorts the picture, though in the other direction. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Smallc Posted February 26, 2011 Report Posted February 26, 2011 I did NOT inflate anything. I took 20% as the tax rate, not the 30% top rate. I took the average provincial tax which is about 10% and that brings us up to 30%. Except that those numbers are wrong. Period. Do to the PDOC and see for yourself. As to the HST, it's on things that people don't necessarily buy everyday. You can avoid paying it for the most part. Your numbers (just like the Fraser Institute's) are inflated. Quote
Evening Star Posted February 26, 2011 Report Posted February 26, 2011 (edited) Now, by the way, since you apparently are unwilling to do anything to validate the facts behind your opinions I did your work for you, to some extent. As the Left leaning Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has been quoted as criticizing the methodology of the Fraser Institute on Tax Freedom Day I went to that organization's web site to explore its criticisms and found the following. The institute's own numbers show that, for low-income earners, Tax Freedom Day would arrive in late February; for the huge group of those who straddle the middle range of incomes, Tax Freedom Day would arrive by mid-April. So what they're actually saying is not that the Fraser Institute's figures are necessarily wrong in all things, but that the inclusion of the wealthier income groups distorts the picture. Which, I think, is a valid criticism. But one could also say that inclusion of very low income earners also distorts the picture, though in the other direction. They say more than that: In calculating when Tax Freedom Day occurs, the institute further distorts the picture. It bases its calculations on a family's "cash income," rather than the more meaningful measure of a family's "total income." This shrinks the size of the family's income and makes the tax burden therefore seem heavier. So, for instance, the institute determined last year that Tax Freedom Day fell on June 28, leaving Canadians with the impression they spent almost half the year "working for the government." But if the institute had used the more meaningful measure of "total income," Tax Freedom Day would have fallen near the end of April — about two months earlier. (from http://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/commentary/tax-freedom-day-not-really ) You're technically right that "one could also say that inclusion of very low income earners also distorts the picture". However, what is important is that the "wealthiest income groups" are actually a relatively small number of people who hold a very large proportion of the wealth in the country. As such, this seems to be a greater distortion: http://www.progressive-economics.ca/2006/12/07/wealth-distribution-in-canada/ http://www.td.com/economics/special/dt1206_wealth.jsp Edited February 26, 2011 by Evening Star Quote
jbg Posted February 26, 2011 Report Posted February 26, 2011 The Liberals were leading in the 2006 election campaign until beer and popcorn and then the RCMP Income Trust investigation med campaign. Only one problem; the "income trust" investigation triggered the November 2005 non-confidence motion and vote, if I recall correctly. "Beer and popcorn" came up during the campaign. There is no way that the CPC, NDP and Bloc would have triggered the non-confidence vote if their internal numbers showed the Liberals leading. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Smallc Posted February 26, 2011 Report Posted February 26, 2011 Only one problem; the "income trust" investigation triggered the November 2005 non-confidence motion and vote, if I recall correctly. "Beer and popcorn" came up during the campaign. There is no way that the CPC, NDP and Bloc would have triggered the non-confidence vote if their internal numbers showed the Liberals leading. The Liberal numbers increased during the campaign. The income trust investigation came up mid campaign, and the Liberals dropped almost 10 points overnight. Quote
GWiz Posted February 26, 2011 Report Posted February 26, 2011 The Liberal numbers increased during the campaign. The income trust investigation came up mid campaign, and the Liberals dropped almost 10 points overnight. Yeah, it's all just noise, just let Harper get a majority and Canadians may be envying Wisconsin public employees... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
Smallc Posted February 27, 2011 Report Posted February 27, 2011 Yeah, it's all just noise, just let Harper get a majority and Canadians may be envying Wisconsin public employees... Quote
bloodyminded Posted February 27, 2011 Report Posted February 27, 2011 (edited) So what they're actually saying is not that the Fraser Institute's figures are necessarily wrong in all things, but that the inclusion of the wealthier income groups distorts the picture. Which, I think, is a valid criticism. But one could also say that inclusion of very low income earners also distorts the picture, though in the other direction. This seems fair enough--as a matter of principle--but it might not have the same effects as regards the math. (I admit I haven't looked at it in any depth, so I'm speculating.) But because the very rich are so very rich, the skewing can be more profound than in the other way 'round. [edit: I see that Evening Star has already made this point.] For example, check out the average income of me and Bill Gates! It seems I'm doing far better--on average--than I had thought. Edited February 27, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Scotty Posted February 27, 2011 Report Posted February 27, 2011 This seems fair enough--as a matter of principle--but it might not have the same effects as regards the math. (I admit I haven't looked at it in any depth, so I'm speculating.) But because the very rich are so very rich, the skewing can be more profound than in the other way 'round. [edit: I see that Evening Star has already made this point.] For example, check out the average income of me and Bill Gates! It seems I'm doing far better--on average--than I had thought. I don't know. I haven't tried to do the math, but remember we're talking taxes, not income. The effective income tax rate of the poor is about 0%. They do pay sales taxes, and if they rent a house (as opposed to public housing) they pay municipal taxes that way, but not much more. So if you add in a couple of million - or several million people who pay very, very little taxes that could skew the results lower as much as the smaller number of wealthy will skew it higher. Ie, Gates pays 60% taxes, you pay 40%, Fred, Ethel and Suzie all pay 5%. That gives an average tax rate of 23%, doesn't it? Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
bloodyminded Posted February 27, 2011 Report Posted February 27, 2011 I don't know. I haven't tried to do the math, but remember we're talking taxes, not income. The effective income tax rate of the poor is about 0%. They do pay sales taxes, and if they rent a house (as opposed to public housing) they pay municipal taxes that way, but not much more. So if you add in a couple of million - or several million people who pay very, very little taxes that could skew the results lower as much as the smaller number of wealthy will skew it higher. I don't know. I'm trying to figure it out, and I'm slow. My income analogy was not quite right, I agree. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Evening Star Posted February 28, 2011 Report Posted February 28, 2011 Did the Fraser Institute make their calculation based on total tax dollars or by averaging the percentage of each person's income that is paid in taxes? If the former, I think I'm still right. If the latter, then it gets more complicated. I'll concede that I'm not an economist and haven't actually looked at the Fraser Institute's figures anyway. Quote
Scotty Posted February 28, 2011 Report Posted February 28, 2011 Did the Fraser Institute make their calculation based on total tax dollars or by averaging the percentage of each person's income that is paid in taxes? If the former, I think I'm still right. If the latter, then it gets more complicated. I'll concede that I'm not an economist and haven't actually looked at the Fraser Institute's figures anyway. I don't really know, but here's the thing. If I'm going to argue the validity of a Fraser Institute study I'd rather it be one on the actual topic of this thread - immigration - which I have actually read, as opposed to an irrelevant study which one particular poster is upset with. The difficulty in talking about immigration is that personal anecdotal evidence and opinions is generally rejected as a means of establishing the worthiness, especially economic, of the system. Yet who is going to launch an actual academic study by educated individuals who does not have some bias in the matter? Any governmental institution will be supporting whatever the government wants. Most others will be at the behest of various groups heavily(and profitably) involved with the immigration industry. If you reject, out of hand, one of the few relatively unbiased (relatively) independent agencies of social and economic policy analysis simply because you don't like their presumed politics it doesn't leave much actual documented evidence to discuss. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
GWiz Posted February 28, 2011 Report Posted February 28, 2011 Derailed thread... Anyone still interested in the subject matter? May be a major issue next election... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
Smallc Posted February 28, 2011 Report Posted February 28, 2011 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canada-near-top-in-integrating-immigrants-survey-says/article1923091/ So we're not as bad as assumed, it seems. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted February 28, 2011 Report Posted February 28, 2011 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canada-near-top-in-integrating-immigrants-survey-says/article1923091/ So we're not as bad as assumed, it seems. Except that the article holds up European countries as examples of the integration policy working...lol. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
xul Posted March 1, 2011 Report Posted March 1, 2011 (edited) I don't know. I'm trying to figure it out, and I'm slow. My income analogy was not quite right, I agree. I think you just haven't figured out how right you are... There is a joke: Scotty was the King of the most backward third-world country Kanada. He was also the only capitalist of the country and all other his countrymen were his slaves working in his factory called ScottyMart. The slaves worked 16 hours everyday without any payment, so they didn't need to pay tax. King Scotty horsed around 24 hours a day but took all the profits of the business so he was the only one paying taxes in the nation. One day, Kanada's god Harper, after coming to China to lecture Chinese dictator how to respect Lama rights and freedom of brain manipulation, came to Kanada to lecture King Scotty how to respect the worker rights and the freedom of being a free human. "No, no way!" King Scotty yelled at his god, "if these slaves paid any taxes into Kanada's revenue, I would regard their rights, but they didn't. So why should they have the very rights on par with me? Considering what you are saying, you are not my beloved conservative-economist god any more. Get out of my palace..." Edited March 1, 2011 by xul Quote
Smallc Posted March 1, 2011 Report Posted March 1, 2011 Except that the article holds up European countries as examples of the integration policy working...lol. The two countries above us really don't have integration problems at all. We haven't had many problems either, and we have the highest immigration rate on the planet. Quote
Bonam Posted March 1, 2011 Report Posted March 1, 2011 The two countries above us really don't have integration problems at all. We haven't had many problems either, and we have the highest immigration rate on the planet. Sweden doesn't have any integration problems? You'd have to be pretty blind to believe that. From my quick perusal, I'd say this survey measures a country's immigrant-friendliness... not how well they integrate. Quote
Scotty Posted March 1, 2011 Report Posted March 1, 2011 (edited) http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canada-near-top-in-integrating-immigrants-survey-says/article1923091/ So we're not as bad as assumed, it seems. Here's the thing which occurred to me as I read this (and as I went to the web site of the group which did the study). Every single measure they used to indicate whether a country was 'integrating' immigrants had to do with the rights and measures that country was taking to make those immigrants feel at home, ie, what rights we were giving them. You'll see where it said we lost points for not letting immigrants vote prior to them obtaining citizenship, but gained points because of how good our education system is in dealing with multicultural issues. The way this group is measuring 'integration' is entirely based on bureaucratic rights and privileges accorded the migrants. Nowhere did it say a single bloody thing about whether the immigrants, in the end, have adopted Canada's cultural value system, or still retain their own into the second and third generation. You'll notice that Sweden is listed as number one. You don't have to look very hard on the web to find that Sweden is having all sorts of problems with its immigrants - particularly its Muslim immigrants. There are numerous suggestions, backed up by statistics, that Muslim immigrants, as an example, are responsible for a vastly disproportionate amount of crimes against women, and are behind a sexual assault/rape rate which has greatly increased over the past several years. Sweden has highest rape rate in Europe Brussels Journal Edited March 1, 2011 by Scotty Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Smallc Posted March 1, 2011 Report Posted March 1, 2011 What this really shows is that you can say anything you want to with studies, either positive or negative. Quote
Scotty Posted March 1, 2011 Report Posted March 1, 2011 What this really shows is that you can say anything you want to with studies, either positive or negative. No, it shows that you have to not just read the headline. You have to look at what it says, engage in some critical thinking, and if you have any doubts, find out who did the study, go to their web site, and have a look at how they conducted the study. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Michael Hardner Posted March 1, 2011 Report Posted March 1, 2011 Sweden doesn't have any integration problems? You'd have to be pretty blind to believe that. From my quick perusal, I'd say this survey measures a country's immigrant-friendliness... not how well they integrate. Still, the article indicated a high support for immigration as well as a high rate of immigration, as well as immigrant-friendliness as you point out. All in all, it seems to point towards a good system. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
GWiz Posted March 1, 2011 Report Posted March 1, 2011 Still, the article indicated a high support for immigration as well as a high rate of immigration, as well as immigrant-friendliness as you point out. All in all, it seems to point towards a good system. But it could still be better... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
Michael Hardner Posted March 1, 2011 Report Posted March 1, 2011 There are numerous suggestions, backed up by statistics, that Muslim immigrants, as an example, are responsible for a vastly disproportionate amount of crimes against women, and are behind a sexual assault/rape rate which has greatly increased over the past several years. Those sources look suspicious to me. Can you please provide a link on those stats ? The Wiki on crime in Sweden indicates a 58% rise in 10 years - making a 3X increase over past 20 years reported in these sources is suspicious, and sources that link here. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.