Mike Harris did nothing wrong.

[for_liberty]

For Liberty:

I believe that you have made some motions about majority rule. Does it not occur to you then, that nobody is "forcing ideals" on anyone.  What is happening is that government is providing what the majority of voters want. That is, a decent society. Even most Conservatives are clear that they want the same and only argue about the most efficacious and inexpensive way to deliver it.

That means that the overwhelming majority of Canadians, as in any civilized society, want these services you decry.

It is just a tiny few like you who think they are Libertarian and  who want what you think you want. Most of you are Libertarians because they think it sounds clever: that it puts you in a class superior and removed from the rabble.

It doesn't do that, though. It is a sign of selfishness or inability to see the consequences of what you pray for. Of course, you will come back with the obsessed Ayn Rand,s idea of enlightened selfishness. You should read more of Hugo's posts if you want to understand Libertarianism far beyond your tentative explorations.

His views are equally naive but he makes interesting intellectual argument.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So eureka i must be selfish because i don't share your ideals. And i am unable to see the consequences of what i pray for too. But what are the consequences of what social services we have? Maybe dependance. I know people in the government always tell of someone who has got off of welfare and become a productive member of society, but it is too few and far in between. I can only talk of people i grew up with because i have never done or read of any study, but of the people i grew up with whose family was on one form of dole or another just about all of them are still on. They are all able to work but find it easier on them this way.

[err]

For you information.... the "Liberals" are Conservatives... at least Paul Martin is...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What are you basing Martin's Conservative-ness on? Certainly not his social philosophy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fiscal Policy...

[err]

But what are the consequences of what social services we have? Maybe dependance. I know people in the government always tell of someone who has got off of welfare and become a productive member of society, but it is too few and far in between. I can only talk of people i grew up with because i have never done or read of any study, but of the people i grew up with whose family was on one form of dole or another just about all of them are still on. They are all able to work but find it easier on them this way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You'll find all kinds of people in every culture. There will always be the few who we have a hard time respecting because they don't "pull their weight". However, most people are not like that. If we were to eliminate the social safety net that we have in place in Canada/Ontario just so that these few people did not "rip us off", then we'd be putting thousands and thousands in jeopardy.

Most people who lose their jobs want to become re-employed. I'm glad that there is unemployment insurance to help them survive (and not lose their homes, cars, etc..) due to the unforseen event that has left them temporarily unemployed. It happens to thousands every year...

Most women whose husbands left them with small children (due to death or other reason) would rather not be in the situation that they are in. I'm glad that there is a mothers allowance and other forms of assistance for them. I think that a mother is the best person to bring up a child... not a day-care facility...

I'm glad that there is a health care system in place to help the millions of people who could not otherwise afford the care that saves or improves their lives.

(You can't even compare our system to the USA's... but then again, most European countries blow our system out of the water).

I hope that should I, or anyone that I care for, should require any of these services, that they be there for them, just as I would hope the said services be there for me if I should ever need them. I realize that for most of my life, I've paid an awful lot more than I've extracted from the system, but it was there a few times when I did need it. Even though a tiny fraction of a percent of our population might abuse the system, I'd rather have it so that people who do need it are protected when they need it.

You'll find that the "have nots" don't complain half as much as the "haves" about the social safety net. (Except for in this forum, the "haves" don't bother with it...) Those who don't need it don't want to pay for it, but I think you'll find that those who do need it don't complain nearly so loud. And the majority of Canadians will at some time or other, need it.

[for_liberty]

So are the people in my old neibourhood an anomoly? I don't think so. The problem with the system is it creates dependance. If they go out and get a job they might lose their subsidized apartment or other services and subsidized child care for example. The department doesn't want these people off the system, their job depends on them. Now i am sure there are good people who do try to help them get off but i doubt it is the majority. There is no incentive for these people to get off and there is no incentive for government employees to do a good job. But hey lets pour more money into it and not reform the system is always the solution with government.

[err]

So are the people in my old  neibourhood an anomoly? I don't think so. The problem with the system is it creates dependance. If they go out and get a job they might lose their subsidized apartment or other services and subsidized child care for example. 

And I note that you say your "old neighbourhood"... are you the anomoly ?

The department doesn't want these people off the system, their job depends on them. Now i am sure there are good people who do try to help them get off but i doubt it is the majority. There is no incentive for these people to get off and there is no incentive for government employees to do a good job.

Huh ????

But hey lets pour more money into it and not reform the system is always the solution with government.

Would you punish the thousands for the sins of the few ??

I'd rather have a safety that's there to protect millions of hard-working Canadians than take it away because a few people in your old neighbourhood use it as a hammock....

[Renegade]

So err, would you support a social saftey net in which someone could opt-out of? By this I mean they would not pay that portion of their tax which supports the saftey net, and also would not be eligible to receive no saftey net benefits?

[err]

So err, would you support a social saftey net in which someone could opt-out of? By this I mean they would not pay that portion of their tax which supports the saftey net, and also would not be eligible to receive no saftey net benefits?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No... only rich people will want to opt out... and maybe ignorant people.... And though the rich may be able to afford it, they'll want tax write-offs for any procedures they pay for... and they shouldn't be eligible for them...

People in Canada receive many beneifits, not just health insurance.... and they pay taxes for a pool of benefits... Wealthy people still need to drive on our roads. they still need to use the public infrastructure... they still need the police, etc... They cannot opt out of the other services to cut their tax bill, and neither should they be able to opt out of a portion of their taxes for medical care...

[Renegade]

No... only rich people will want to opt out... and maybe ignorant people.... And though the rich may be able to afford it, they'll want tax write-offs for any procedures they pay for... and they shouldn't be eligible for them...

So is your reason for not allowing them to opt out because you think they will want tax write-offs? If there were no tax write-offs would you then support them opting out?

People in Canada receive many beneifits, not just health insurance.... and they pay taxes for a pool of benefits... Wealthy people still need to drive on our roads. they still need to use the public infrastructure... they still need the police, etc... They cannot opt out of the other services to cut their tax bill, and neither should they be able to opt out of a portion of their taxes for medical care...

I'm not following your logic on why benefits need to be an "all-or-none" package. Sure there are some which have fixed setup costs, but others are for the most part variable. BTW, I'm not just talking medical care, I'm including welfare, Old Age, etc. If it is such a benefit as you say, why not make it voluntary?

[err]

I'm not following your logic on why benefits need to be an "all-or-none" package. Sure there are some which have fixed setup costs, but others are for the most part variable. BTW, I'm not just talking medical care, I'm including welfare, Old Age, etc.  If it is such a benefit as you say, why not make it voluntary?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, if you don't want the Canadian package, you can always take the USA package... but you'll have to move there to get it...

[Renegade]

Well, if you don't want the Canadian package, you can always take the USA package... but you'll have to move there to get it...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's really a non-answer. What I asked was what makes the package indivisible and immutable?

[err]

Well, if you don't want the Canadian package, you can always take the USA package... but you'll have to move there to get it...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's really a non-answer. What I asked was what makes the package indivisible and immutable?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's the one that the Canadian government offers... They don't have a "buy one get one free", no "scratch and dent sales", and no "partial subscriptions".

[Renegade]

It's the one that the Canadian government offers... They don't have a "buy one get one free", no "scratch and dent sales", and no "partial subscriptions".

Another non-answer. If you're not going to answer the question, just say so.

I didn't ask what the government offers, I asked what YOUR position was.

You have not provided any reason why programs are not separable, so then ASSUMING it is, what is your position regarding opting out. Please think about this and answer, and stop avoiding the question.

[err]

Another non-answer. If you're not going to answer the question, just say so.

I didn't ask what the government offers, I asked what YOUR position was.

You have not provided any reason why programs are not separable, so then ASSUMING it is, what is your position regarding opting out. Please think about this and answer, and stop avoiding the question.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Could you imaging the accounting nightmare to sort every program out, every contributor, etc... Our government would not be nearly as efficient as it is if it were to implement such a system.

Plus, given your arguments for "choice"... you know that the wealthiest who can afford their own health care are going to "choose" not to pay taxes on their income if they can get away with it. They will choose to help themselves... and not the less fortunate in our society....

[Renegade]

Could you imaging the accounting nightmare to sort every program out, every contributor, etc...  Our government would not be nearly as efficient as it is if it were to implement such a system. 

Not any better or worse than it is now. It is just one line item on your tax return which would result in less taxes if you opt out. Your already required to prove you are part of the system now, by having to show your health card. It is easy enough to know if that card is valid or invalid. How is it (at least in Ontario) we can track choice of school to which we pay education taxes? So your saying we can't keep track of one binary choice to opt out of medicare? C'mon, a weak argument at best.

Plus, given your arguments for "choice"... you know that the wealthiest who can afford their own health care are going to "choose" not to pay taxes on their income if they can get away with it. They will choose to help themselves... and not the less fortunate in our society....

Of course I'm aware that the people who supply the majority of funding for the system would opt out. It proves my point. They would opt out because they are better off without it. What your really saying is that medicare is better because it is yet another redistribution scheme from the wealthy to the poor. You have basicly admitted that the people who fund medicare are better off, in terms of the medical benefits they get, without it. (why else would they opt out?) It is only the people who don't provide much of the funding who are better off getting "free" healthcare.

Thank-you for at least finally answering the question.

[err]

Could you imaging the accounting nightmare to sort every program out, every contributor, etc...  Our government would not be nearly as efficient as it is if it were to implement such a system. 

Not any better or worse than it is now. It is just one line item on your tax return which would result in less taxes if you opt out. Your already required to prove you are part of the system now, by having to show your health card. It is easy enough to know if that card is valid or invalid. How is it (at least in Ontario) we can track choice of school to which we pay education taxes? So your saying we can't keep track of one binary choice to opt out of medicare? C'mon, a weak argument at best.

Well, there's medicare, welfare, UI, child support, and so many more programs that you conservatives would want to opt out of if we were to open pandora's box. If that number were to grow to 10, there would be over a 1000 permutations to consider (actually 1024). For every extra combination, you double the complexity of the accounting.

Plus, given your arguments for "choice"... you know that the wealthiest who can afford their own health care are going to "choose" not to pay taxes on their income if they can get away with it. They will choose to help themselves... and not the less fortunate in our society....

Of course I'm aware that the people who supply the majority of funding for the system would opt out. It proves my point. They would opt out because they are better off without it. What your really saying is that medicare is better because it is yet another redistribution scheme from the wealthy to the poor. You have basicly admitted that the people who fund medicare are better off, in terms of the medical benefits they get, without it. (why else would they opt out?) It is only the people who don't provide much of the funding who are better off getting "free" healthcare.

You have the naive conception that we have a progressive tax system in this country. On paper, we theoretically have a progressive INCOME TAX system. However, we pay a large value added tax (GST, PST) With these taxes, you are taxed on how much you spend. Poorer and middle income families spend all of their income, and live cheque to cheque... The value added tax is applied to 100% of their income. The wealthy, on the other hand, pay the value added tax on the smaller portion of their income than do the poor, and hence, are taxed at a lower rate.

Business owners and shareholder class do not pay EI... the working class do...

Not to mention the capital gains tax exemptions that benefit primarily the rich. When their assets (homes etc...) appreciate, they are not taxed on their income from this. The wealth have all kinds of tax write-offs that the poor do not have, and the reality works out that proporitonally, we have a regressive tax system, where the poor pay a greater percentage of thier income in taxes than do the rich.

Then consider the number of poor vs. the number of rich. In Canada, 50% of the wealth resides with 1% of the population. The majority of Canadians are in the middle and lower income brackets, and I think that if you research the numbers, you'll find that the poor and middle income earners pay most of the taxes in this country.

[Renegade]

Well, there's medicare, welfare, UI, child support, and so many more programs that you conservatives would want to opt out of if we were to open pandora's box. If that number were to grow to 10, there would be over a 1000 permutations to consider (actually 1024). For every extra combination, you double the complexity of the accounting.

Just because you can't get your mind around how to do it doesn't mean it can't be done. Have you ever done your taxes? They keep track of dozens of things about you. CNIL, Unclaimed Capital Losses, RRSP limit, RRSP overcontribution, Marital Status, whether you netfiled, ... I could go on. And you claim they couldn't keep track of a few binary choices??? Cmon give me a better argument than this.

You have the naive conception that we have a progressive tax system in this country. On paper, we theoretically have a progressive INCOME TAX system. However, we pay a large value added tax (GST, PST) With these taxes, you are taxed on how much you spend. Poorer and middle income families spend all of their income, and live cheque to cheque... The value added tax is applied to 100% of their income. The wealthy, on the other hand, pay the value added tax on the smaller portion of their income than do the poor, and hence, are taxed at a lower rate.

Business owners and shareholder class do not pay EI... the working class do...

Not to mention the capital gains tax exemptions that benefit primarily the rich. When their assets (homes etc...) appreciate, they are not taxed on their income from this. The wealth have all kinds of tax write-offs that the poor do not have, and the reality works out that proporitonally, we have a regressive tax system, where the poor pay a greater percentage of thier income in taxes than do the rich.

Then consider the number of poor vs. the number of rich. In Canada, 50% of the wealth resides with 1% of the population. The majority of Canadians are in the middle and lower income brackets, and I think that if you research the numbers, you'll find that the poor and middle income earners pay most of the taxes in this country.

Don't let real numbers get in the way of the fantasy you have written.

Let me present some numbers and quotations. The Relative Tax Burden

The following are excerpts:

Who pays the tax bill?

Table 5.3 shows that the largest portion of the tax burden ultimately

settles on the higher income groups. In 2000, the top 30% of families

earned 59.4% of all income in Canada and paid 65.7% of all taxes. The

bottom 30% earned 8.1% of all income and paid 4.3% of all taxes.

To economists these figures are nothing out of the ordinary. Our

tax system is progressive. It is not surprising to find that those earning

lower income pay less tax as a proportion of their income than those

earning higher income. This result may, however, come as a surprise to

activists and reporters who claim that the “rich” in Canada pay no taxes.

As tables 5.3 and 5.4 show, the rich bear most of Canada’s taxation

burden.

Get it from the rich

It is often said—and all too often believed—that the key to “social welfare”

or “social justice” is the redistribution of income. That is, the

state should take income from those who have more and give it to those

who have less. The extreme form of this prescription is “from each according

to his ability [to pay] and to each according to his need”—the

rule advanced in the Communist Manifesto (Marx and Engels 1848).

The preceding section’s analysis of who pays the income tax reveals

that, as a country, Canada already engages in significant taxation

of those who are relatively well-off. It remains interesting, therefore, to

inquire whether or not we could achieve a more equal distribution of

the benefits of the Canadian good life by taxing more of the income of

the richest Canadians.

So if you've got some real evidence that the rich are not paying more than their share, lets see it. Otherwise, I think we can all conclude this is more conjecture on your part without any basis in fact.

[err]

Don't let real numbers get in the way of the fantasy you have written.

Let me present some numbers and quotations. The Relative Tax Burden

The following are excerpts:

Who pays the tax bill?

Table 5.3 shows that the largest portion of the tax burden ultimately

settles on the higher income groups. In 2000, the top 30% of families

earned 59.4% of all income in Canada and paid 65.7% of all taxes. The

bottom 30% earned 8.1% of all income and paid 4.3% of all taxes.

To economists these figures are nothing out of the ordinary. Our

tax system is progressive. It is not surprising to find that those earning

lower income pay less tax as a proportion of their income than those

earning higher income. This result may, however, come as a surprise to

activists and reporters who claim that the “rich” in Canada pay no taxes.

As tables 5.3 and 5.4 show, the rich bear most of Canada’s taxation

burden.

Get it from the rich

It is often said—and all too often believed—that the key to “social welfare”

or “social justice” is the redistribution of income. That is, the

state should take income from those who have more and give it to those

who have less. The extreme form of this prescription is “from each according

to his ability [to pay] and to each according to his need”—the

rule advanced in the Communist Manifesto (Marx and Engels 1848).

The preceding section’s analysis of who pays the income tax reveals

that, as a country, Canada already engages in significant taxation

of those who are relatively well-off. It remains interesting, therefore, to

inquire whether or not we could achieve a more equal distribution of

the benefits of the Canadian good life by taxing more of the income of

the richest Canadians.

So if you've got some real evidence that the rich are not paying more than their share, lets see it. Otherwise, I think we can all conclude this is more conjecture on your part without any basis in fact.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Faser institute is only respected by mindless right-wing neo-cons like yourself. Where's my proof...

In my previous email, I mentioned capital gains.... free, hundreds of billions of dollars of tax free money for the wealthy of Canada every year... not counted as income, so it they mustn't get it... right...

Then we have the "value added" taxes, where the poor in Ontario pay between 8 and 15% of what they have left of their cheques on GST, PST... The wealthier class, who do not live paycheque to paycheque pay considerably less as a percentage... GST and PST amount to HUGE sums of money... not accounted for by your precious Faser institute...

Then there's "real income" your precious Fraser institute doesn't talk about the truth for the wealthier... who have so many tax shelters, they can appear to be in the middle classes (or deciles, if you want to use your precious Faser institute's terminology).

I'm not just speculating due to some cleverly worded paper that I read. I'll give you an example....

For the past 15 years, I got a brand new car about every 2 years. I, or sorry, my company, leases them. Of course, I get free gas, insurance, license plates, and service with that. Of course it's not counted as income. It's a cost... a tax write-off. And who pays for that.... You could say "the rich".... but, let's go on further. In order to reduce the tax that my company pays, my wife is on the payroll, even though she does not work, and has not needed to work for the past 15 years.... but she pays tax on her income.... And net, I pay less... Why... because I'm in the class that pays the most taxes, right.... but let's go on....

Because my wife is an "employee", there is nothing untoward about us going on a few "business trips" to Boston every year, all expenses paid, nice hotel, etc... That isn't taxed... It's not taxable income... It's an expense... that I can write off... and result in paying less taxes.... so who has to take up the slack....

I could go on for quite some time about how it is so easy for higher income earners to "milk" the system that is designed for the wealthier... and I can still manage to slide into the 5th and 6th decile, as your precious Fraser Institute would call it.

I didn't write this to "piss you off", or in any way flaunt, because flaunting certainly isn't in my nature. However, you should see that from what I've describe above, I get to hide over $50K of real income every year. And I'm just a small fish... Most of the folks with whom I do business do a lot better than that... Your precious Fraser institute doesn't even mention these kinds of possibilities, so they just don't exist, do they.... I shouldn't be taxed more... they should cut my taxes more to make a better climate for my business... Maybe you should pay more taxes to help in that respect....

[err]

Reposted for clarity (I goofed up the quotation marks last time)... sorry.

Don't let real numbers get in the way of the fantasy you have written.

Let me present some numbers and quotations. The Relative Tax Burden

The following are excerpts:

Who pays the tax bill?

Table 5.3 shows that the largest portion of the tax burden ultimately

settles on the higher income groups. In 2000, the top 30% of families

earned 59.4% of all income in Canada and paid 65.7% of all taxes. The

bottom 30% earned 8.1% of all income and paid 4.3% of all taxes.

To economists these figures are nothing out of the ordinary. Our

tax system is progressive. It is not surprising to find that those earning

lower income pay less tax as a proportion of their income than those

earning higher income. This result may, however, come as a surprise to

activists and reporters who claim that the “rich” in Canada pay no taxes.

As tables 5.3 and 5.4 show, the rich bear most of Canada’s taxation

burden.

Get it from the rich

It is often said—and all too often believed—that the key to “social welfare”

or “social justice” is the redistribution of income. That is, the

state should take income from those who have more and give it to those

who have less. The extreme form of this prescription is “from each according

to his ability [to pay] and to each according to his need”—the

rule advanced in the Communist Manifesto (Marx and Engels 1848).

The preceding section’s analysis of who pays the income tax reveals

that, as a country, Canada already engages in significant taxation

of those who are relatively well-off. It remains interesting, therefore, to

inquire whether or not we could achieve a more equal distribution of

the benefits of the Canadian good life by taxing more of the income of

the richest Canadians.

So if you've got some real evidence that the rich are not paying more than their share, lets see it. Otherwise, I think we can all conclude this is more conjecture on your part without any basis in fact.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Faser institute is only respected by mindless right-wing neo-cons like yourself. Where's my proof...

In my previous email, I mentioned capital gains.... free, hundreds of billions of dollars of tax free money for the wealthy of Canada every year... not counted as income, so it they mustn't get it... right...

Then we have the "value added" taxes, where the poor in Ontario pay between 8 and 15% of what they have left of their cheques on GST, PST... The wealthier class, who do not live paycheque to paycheque pay considerably less as a percentage... GST and PST amount to HUGE sums of money... not accounted for by your precious Faser institute...

Then there's "real income" your precious Fraser institute doesn't talk about the truth for the wealthier... who have so many tax shelters, they can appear to be in the middle classes (or deciles, if you want to use your precious Faser institute's terminology).

I'm not just speculating due to some cleverly worded paper that I read. I'll give you an example....

For the past 15 years, I got a brand new car about every 2 years. I, or sorry, my company, leases them. Of course, I get free gas, insurance, license plates, and service with that. Of course it's not counted as income. It's a cost... a tax write-off. And who pays for that.... You could say "the rich".... but, let's go on further. In order to reduce the tax that my company pays, my wife is on the payroll, even though she does not work, and has not needed to work for the past 15 years.... but she pays tax on her income.... And net, I pay less... Why... because I'm in the class that pays the most taxes, right.... but let's go on....

Because my wife is an "employee", there is nothing untoward about us going on a few "business trips" to Boston every year, all expenses paid, nice hotel, etc... That isn't taxed... It's not taxable income... It's an expense... that I can write off... and result in paying less taxes.... so who has to take up the slack....

I could go on for quite some time about how it is so easy for higher income earners to "milk" the system that is designed for the wealthier... and I can still manage to slide into the 5th and 6th decile, as your precious Fraser Institute would call it.

I didn't write this to "piss you off", or in any way flaunt, because flaunting certainly isn't in my nature. However, you should see that from what I've describe above, I get to hide over $50K of real income every year. And I'm just a small fish... Most of the folks with whom I do business do a lot better than that... Your precious Fraser institute doesn't even mention these kinds of possibilities, so they just don't exist, do they.... I shouldn't be taxed more... they should cut my taxes more to make a better climate for my business... Maybe you should pay more taxes to help in that respect....

[BHS]

err:

You're an interesting fellow. You advocate for the government to take a bigger portion of my measly (non-unionized) income to pay for your pet social causes and unionized beer store clerks, and then admit that you intentionally hide large sums of income from the same tax system. You're a lot like John Kerry and Paul Martin that way. Keep in mind, you aren't obliged to take all of those tax breaks, and that you do so while advocating higher taxes for people who don't have the same opportunities makes you a FIRST CLASS HYPOCRITICAL BASTARD. I'll keep in mind to never, ever listen to anything you have to say again, because you're completely full of it.

[err]

err:

You're an interesting fellow. You advocate for the government to take a bigger portion of my measly (non-unionized) income to pay for your pet social causes and unionized beer store clerks, and then admit that you intentionally hide large sums of income from the same tax system. You're a lot like John Kerry and Paul Martin that way. Keep in mind, you aren't obliged to take all of those tax breaks, and that you do so while advocating higher taxes for people who don't have the same opportunities makes you a FIRST CLASS HYPOCRITICAL BASTARD. I'll keep in mind to never, ever listen to anything you have to say again, because you're completely full of it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Didn't you get the sarcasm in my post. I'm constantly being told by right-wing posters that the rich pay too much, and that the poor are taking all the money. I don't like getting into my personal situation, but felt that it was the only way that I could get through to the individual.

It is common practice, and my accountant (who thinks I'm nuts) assures me that if I feel bad about a system that is so heavily weighted in favour of the fortunate, that I should still maximize on my tax savings and put the savings where my heart tells me is the right place... So, as I had alluded to in previous posts, I donate generously to a number of charities, political organizations, and other "lefty causes" that I get pleasure from helping. It would be safe to say that I donate a lot more than other people in my income range... I have actually forced my accountant not to hide all the income he can, (actually, I specify the minimum amount of tax to show) because I believe all Canadians should contribute through the regular channels.

I think it is wrong that so many loopholes are available for the wealty.... I'm better off than the majority, but I don't even fit into what I would call the "wealthy" category.... Where the biggest tax savings are found.

And I sense from you rant above, that you think that I advocate higher taxes for the poorer class... You obviously haven't been listening to me. You couldn't be further from the truth. I advocate less tax breaks for the wealthy, (including capital gains and investment income) and advocate a fully paid for set of social services for all citizens, not just the poorer.... If the governement would remove some of the capital gains tax shelters alone, they could afford these programs without increasing the tax burden on the poorer and middle classes.

[Renegade]

The Faser institute is only respected by mindless right-wing neo-cons like yourself. Where's my proof...

Despite your respect for the Fraser Institute, you have not disputed the statistics provided, nor have you provided any other stats to back up your claims.

In my previous email, I mentioned capital gains.... free, hundreds of billions of dollars of tax free money for the wealthy of Canada every year... not counted as income, so it they mustn't get it... right...

Then we have the "value added" taxes, where the poor in Ontario pay between 8 and 15% of what they have left of their cheques on GST, PST... The wealthier class, who do not live paycheque to paycheque pay considerably less as a percentage... GST and PST amount to HUGE sums of money... not accounted for by your precious Faser institute...

What's your point? That the poor shouldn't pay for all the government services they consume??? If the poor are really paycheque to paycheque, a large percentage of their major expenses (food, rent) are free from GST & PST. Show me a dollar amount that the average poor person is paying and I will show you that he is consuming far more in services than he is ever paying for. Does it not seem logical to you that the wealthy consume more in society (eg bigger houses, more expensive cars, etc) and so the dollar amount of taxes they pay are more?

For the past 15 years, I got a brand new car about every 2 years. I, or sorry, my company, leases them. Of course, I get free gas, insurance, license plates, and service with that. Of course it's not counted as income. It's a cost... a tax write-off. And who pays for that.... You could say "the rich".... but, let's go on further. In order to reduce the tax that my company pays, my wife is on the payroll, even though she does not work, and has not needed to work for the past 15 years.... but she pays tax on her income.... And net, I pay less... Why... because I'm in the class that pays the most taxes, right.... but let's go on....

Because my wife is an "employee", there is nothing untoward about us going on a few "business trips" to Boston every year, all expenses paid, nice hotel, etc... That isn't taxed... It's not taxable income... It's an expense... that I can write off... and result in paying less taxes.... so who has to take up the slack....

I could go on for quite some time about how it is so easy for higher income earners to "milk" the system that is designed for the wealthier... and I can still manage to slide into the 5th and 6th decile, as your precious Fraser Institute would call it.

You are unbelievable. You are EVADING taxes. If your wife is on the payroll but is not actually working, you are comitting both fraud and tax evasion which are criminal offences, and you further perpetuate the fraud by writing off recreational trips to Boston as "business". If you think this is all above board and permitted, then I dare you to provide the CCRA with EXACTLY the same verbage as you have written above. I guarantee yourself an audit and you will likely have some tax reversals, as well as fines.

So if I understand your argument above, you evade taxes, and so you assume that all the rich do so as well. That is an idotic argument and you provide no stats or numbers to back up your claim. All we have is your admission that you evade taxes.

Having said that I do agree with you that there are inequities in the tax system. One of them is that a company gets taxed on income where an individual get taxed on revenue. You are taking advantage of this above by hiding your revenue to minimize your income. This however is not an option for people who are not self-employed or have a similar arrangement with their company.

I didn't write this to "piss you off", or in any way flaunt, because flaunting certainly isn't in my nature. However, you should see that from what I've describe above, I get to hide over $50K of real income every year. And I'm just a small fish... Most of the folks with whom I do business do a lot better than that... Your precious Fraser institute doesn't even mention these kinds of possibilities, so they just don't exist, do they.... I shouldn't be taxed more... they should cut my taxes more to make a better climate for my business... Maybe you should pay more taxes to help in that respect....

I rarely get "pissed off", and certainly your ramblings don't do it. It amuses me more than anything else. Since you've made allegations, show me some evidence. Show me how much the rich actually pay after the tax deductions, and including GST, PST, and whatever other taxes. Until you do, all you are doing is ranting "make the rich pay" using different words.

[Renegade]

It is common practice, and my accountant (who thinks I'm nuts) assures me that if I feel bad about a system that is so heavily weighted in favour of the fortunate, that I should still maximize on my tax savings and put the savings where my heart tells me is the right place... So, as I had alluded to in previous posts, I donate generously to a number of charities, political organizations, and other "lefty causes" that I get pleasure from helping. It would be safe to say that I donate a lot more than other people in my income range... I have actually forced my accountant not to hide all the income he can, (actually, I specify the minimum amount of tax to show) because I believe all Canadians should contribute through the regular channels.

So your accountant "talked you" into taking tax breaks you don't really feel you deserve, so that you could put the savings where your heart tells you is the right place?

Doesn't it sound to you that you chose not to give the government the tax dollars but instead you opted to spend it on programs and political organizations of your own choosing? Isn't this exactly the same option you advocate not allowing everyone else???

It does seem pretty hypocritical that by your actions you demonstrate a behaviour that you then want to condemn of others. Could it be that you don't want to give others the freedom to choose, because they would make choices different than the ones you want? But isn't that what freedom of choice is about?

[err]

Despite your respect for the Fraser Institute, you have not disputed the statistics provided, nor have you provided any other stats to back up your claims.

Didn't you read my post. The Fraser institute completely turns a blind eye to the benefits to the rich, and goes on to portray them as victims.... Which is a big lie. I think I answered it clearly...

Then we have the "value added" taxes, where the poor in Ontario pay between 8 and 15% of what they have left of their cheques on GST, PST... The wealthier class, who do not live paycheque to paycheque pay considerably less as a percentage... GST and PST amount to HUGE sums of money... not accounted for by your precious Faser institute...

What's your point? That the poor shouldn't pay for all the government services they consume??? If the poor are really paycheque to paycheque, a large percentage of their major expenses (food, rent) are free from GST & PST. Show me a dollar amount that the average poor person is paying and I will show you that he is consuming far more in services than he is ever paying for. Does it not seem logical to you that the wealthy consume more in society (eg bigger houses, more expensive cars, etc) and so the dollar amount of taxes they pay are more?

There are actually a few points here... First, the regressive 'value-added' taxes are not accounted for by the Fraser institute.... Again, they turn a blind eye to a huge reality so that their position seems more credible.

The rich do somewhat consume more.. but they get to write them off substantially too. Like I said, I always drive a new car... It's a business expense... so I get the GST back.... I don't pay tax on my cars... I dont pay tax on service, and I don't pay the GST on my gasoline... I get it back... You don't... Is that fair... Does you precious Fraser institute talk about stuff like that... I don't think so...

And then, the 'bigger houses'. You'll have to admit that they appreciate in value (most of the time). And when these rich folk sell their houses, often earning hundreds of thousands of dollars mark-up.... do they pay taxes on this income.... NO... they dont. Instead, the government collects this money (that they gave as a tax break on the capital gains) in the form of income taxes and value-added taxes....

So if I understand your argument above, you evade taxes, and so you assume that all the rich do so as well. That is an idotic argument and you provide no stats or numbers to back up your claim. All we have is your admission that you evade taxes.

The wealthy all use accountants. It is an accountant's job to minimize taxes payable to their client. So yes, I would say that nearly all wealthier people get out of paying large chunks of what you seem to be assuming that they pay in taxes.... Sure they pay taxes, but their incomes are brought down substantially because their accountants are doing thier jobs. They aren't being criminals... They're making avail of the loopholes in the system.... legally... Loopholes that aren't big enough according to your precious Fraser institute... loopholes that aren't really available to the lower income segment of the population...

Having said that I do agree with you that there are inequities in the tax system. One of them is that a company gets taxed on income where an individual get taxed on revenue. You are taking advantage of this above by hiding your revenue to minimize your income.  This however is not an option for people who are not self-employed or have a similar arrangement with their company. 

Actually, if you are self-employed you get all these advantages. You have to make enough money to avail of the benefits though....

Show me how much the rich actually pay after the tax deductions, and including GST, PST, and whatever other taxes. Until you do, all you are doing is ranting "make the rich pay" using different words.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I thought I gave you an example of one small fish... There's an ocean out there with an awful lot of bigger fish... Their ability to evade taxation puts a much greater burden on the lower income categories, and that has been my point...

[err]

It is common practice, and my accountant (who thinks I'm nuts) assures me that if I feel bad about a system that is so heavily weighted in favour of the fortunate, that I should still maximize on my tax savings and put the savings where my heart tells me is the right place...

So your accountant "talked you" into taking tax breaks you don't really feel you deserve, so that you could put the savings where your heart tells you is the right place?

Yep, the same legal tax loopholes that all businesses make avail of.... The fact that I may choose to put some of my 'tax savings' into what I feel are worthy causes probably distinguishes me somewhat from the majority.... I know that people who subscribe to the conservative that you advocate would "choose" not to help others, just their own self-centred interests.

Doesn't it sound to you that you chose not to give the government the tax dollars but instead you opted to spend it on programs and political organizations of your own choosing? Isn't this exactly the same option you advocate not allowing everyone else???

I couldn't help but notice how you changed the word "charities" to "programs"... Did you learn this type of mild deception from your Fraser Institute??

I advocate publicly funded social programs, and recommend that the government fix the tax system so that it is fairer to the lower and middle income citizens. ... the majority of the population.

You proport to advocate a "choice" for people who "don't want to pay" for health care, but it's only really a choice for the rich.... So I don't see that it's one that we should promote...

Could it be that you don't want to give others the freedom to choose, because they would make choices different than the ones you want? But isn't that what freedom of choice is about?

You'd probably feel that you had more freedom of choice if you were taxed more fairly. That is, if some of the tax loopholes to the wealthier (and corporate Canada) were tightened, you wouldn't have to pay as much tax, and could enjoy a much better standard of social services. You would have more "choices" if you had a few more dollars left in your pocket....

[cybercoma]

I know that people who subscribe to the conservative that you advocate would "choose" not to help others, just their own self-centred interests.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I just wanted to quote this line so you could read it over and over again until you realize what is wrong with your thinking.