Tories turning attacks toward Layton, NDP

[bloodyminded]

yes corporate taxes should be eliminated. You would see so many companies over to Canada and maybe then there would finally be enough jobs for Canadians. Lord knows the immigrants coming in certainly aren't opening up jobs for Canadians. They have their hand out like everyone else looking for employment.

"Looking for employment" is now a negative, akin to "hav[ing] their hand out"?

Man, I hate those parasites who look for employment!

[bloodyminded]

Also, if you stop taxing corparations, they are no longer treated as "indivual taxpayers", thus reducing their rights in court, and also their influnce on government via lobbying.

That's an interesting point, and thanks to my essential stupidity, I'd never considered it before. All the ire aimed at large corporations aside, it is true--and unreasonable--that these large private entities do have disproportionate political influence. That's a bigger issue than the matter of their tax rates.

Edited April 24, 2011 by bloodyminded

[cybercoma]

And yet, Harper is a typical, WASP English-Canadian.

And water is wet, but I don't give H₂O credit for getting us through the recession.

[cybercoma]

A tax-free zone. Have you people lost your minds? How do you expect to finance your fighter jets and military defense programs by reducing federal revenues by over 20%?

[wyly]

That is true, but some credit should be given to former finance minister (Not PM) Paul Martin, whom was forced to make cuts so deep he hit bone.....granted Michael Wilson, Paul Martin, and now Jim Flaherty have been saddled with Trudeau's 200 billion dollar debt. Chicken and the egg?

:lol: :lol: oh my what a selective memory, to be able to skip right over the mulroney years....mulroney grew the debt faster than the economy every year the torys were in office and took 9 years to reverse after he he left office....355 billion by 1993... Edited April 24, 2011 by wyly

[Smallc]

Did anyone see Paul Dewar and John Baird on Question Period? Paul Dewar totally owned Baird.

[Guest Derek L]

A tax-free zone. Have you people lost your minds? How do you expect to finance your fighter jets and military defense programs by reducing federal revenues by over 20%?

A (low) flat rate income tax, without exceptions or exemptions, and a slight increase on a national VAT, such as the HST.

[punked]

A (low) flat rate income tax, without exceptions or exemptions, and a slight increase on a national VAT, such as the HST.

You actually are going to have use numbers here. Sorry you don't get away with saying we should get rid of corporate taxes the say that somehow you would fix it with very little change to the tax code. Numbers and estimates are needed because right now you are going on blind belief AND NO KNOWLEDGE OF HOW ECONOMY WORKS. Btw when writing your essay keep in mind that the Canadian economy is much different they any other first world economy because our model is an extraction model. So please don't give me tired arguments that come out of the US the things they talk about there are a different reality here.

[punked]

Did anyone see Paul Dewar and John Baird on Question Period? Paul Dewar totally owned Baird.

Paul Dewar is amazing I remember when they asked him about the parliament renovations and he said "They will take twice as long as they promise, and cost three times as much just like everything else around here"

[Guest Derek L]

You actually are going to have use numbers here. Sorry you don't get away with saying we should get rid of corporate taxes the say that somehow you would fix it with very little change to the tax code. Numbers and estimates are needed because right now you are going on blind belief AND NO KNOWLEDGE OF HOW ECONOMY WORKS. Btw when writing your essay keep in mind that the Canadian economy is much different they any other first world economy because our model is an extraction model. So please don't give me tired arguments that come out of the US the things they talk about there are a different reality here.

The Impact and Cost of Taxation in Canada: The Case for Flat Tax Reform can be downloaded free here:

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-news/display.aspx?id=12780

[punked]

The Impact and Cost of Taxation in Canada: The Case for Flat Tax Reform can be downloaded free here:

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-news/display.aspx?id=12780

Most of the time when I see the fraser institute I tell someone to stuff it. You however seem committed in your beliefs so I went through the paper for you just so you know I read it.

I just want to point out the very first sentence of the paper says: "Canada's tax system provides disincentive to work hard" I work my butt off. I think the same would go for all Canadians no matter what my tax rate is I work very hard.

Sorry the whole premise of the paper is wrong. It actually assumes that because you pay more taxes as you earn more money you wont want to earn more money. I always accept my raise, I work outside of my normal work hours to make more money. Any paper assuming because you will pay more taxes as you earn more you wont want more money assumes the reader is stupid. Do you believe this?

Sorry read the whole paper it does not get past the two things above the paper has not argument but "paying a higher percentage of taxes as you earns more money means you wont want to earn more money." It is the dumbest argument ever there is a reason I don't read papers from the fraser institute.

[bloodyminded]

Most of the time when I see the fraser institute I tell someone to stuff it. You however seem committed in your beliefs so I went through the paper for you just so you know I read it.

I just want to point out the very first sentence of the paper says: "Canada's tax system provides disincentive to work hard" I work my butt off. I think the same would go for all Canadians no matter what my tax rate is I work very hard.

Sorry the whole premise of the paper is wrong. It actually assumes that because you pay more taxes as you earn more money you wont want to earn more money. I always accept my raise, I work outside of my normal work hours to make more money. Any paper assuming because you will pay more taxes as you earn more you wont want more money assumes the reader is stupid. Do you believe this?

Sorry read the whole paper it does not get past the two things above the paper has not argument but "paying a higher percentage of taxes as you earns more money means you wont want to earn more money." It is the dumbest argument ever there is a reason I don't read papers from the fraser institute.

Yeah, the fact that so many people actively strive to get rich--a number that is not shrinking, to my knowledge--sort of rules out the "disincentive" theory.

"Hmmm...my taxes will be high if I get rich, so why bother?"

I don't think it works that way.

[punked]

Yeah, the fact that so many people actively strive to get rich--a number that is not shrinking, to my knowledge--sort of rules out the "disincentive" theory.

"Hmmm...my taxes will be high if I get rich, so why bother?"

I don't think it works that way.

But that idea is what the whole paper is based on. It states it a million times. It is like these people live a different world. They live in a world where no one wants to be a doctor because they would be in the top tax bracket. I'll tell you people still want to be doctors.

[Guest Derek L]

But that idea is what the whole paper is based on. It states it a million times. It is like these people live a different world. They live in a world where no one wants to be a doctor because they would be in the top tax bracket. I'll tell you people still want to be doctors.

How many Doctors to do you know on a personnal basis punked? I've a friend that is GP and has a small office, with a clerical staff of two. His income is ~500k, but after taxes, payroll and other buisness expenses, his "take home" is ~90k a year. Thats not really alot, when the investment of both time and money to become a doctor is considered, and that he works ~ 50 hrs a week.

Why is it still attractive for Doctors, higher costs of insurance included, to move to the States to practice medicne?

Why is there a ~$30 billion a year industry in Canada devoted to hiding income from the government?

Edited April 24, 2011 by Derek L

[bloodyminded]

But that idea is what the whole paper is based on. It states it a million times. It is like these people live a different world. They live in a world where no one wants to be a doctor because they would be in the top tax bracket. I'll tell you people still want to be doctors.

Yes, and I don't think people generally worry about how high their taxes will be until they've achieved that level.

Most people would say, "Man, I'd love to be in the top tax bracket!"

[punked]

How many Doctors to do you know on a personnal basis punked? I've a friend that is GP and has a small office, with a clerical staff of two. His income is ~500k, but after taxes, payroll and other buisness expenses, his "take home" is ~90k a year. Thats not really alot, when the investment of both time and money to become a doctor is considered, and that he works ~ 50 hrs a week.

Why is it still attractive for Doctors, higher costs of insurance included, to move to the States to practice medicne?

Why is there a ~$30 billion a year industry in Canada devoted to hiding income from the government?

I know of 10 Canadians who wanted to be in that top tax bracket so much that after being rejected 3 times from Canadian Med schools they went away to become doctors then came back here. People are banging down doors to make it to that the top tax bracket. NO ONE and I repeat NO ONE says "Man I don't want to make more money because in the top tax bracket I will pay more money." Sorry it is a dumb argument from a dumb paper.

As for the 30 billion dollar a year industry. You change the tax structure there is still going to be a 30 billion dollar a year industry devoted to hiding money from the government. Sorry just because you make the tax code simple isn't going to stop tax cheats from being tax cheats. That is another terrible argument. Wow the right of this country is really losing it.

[Guest Derek L]

I know of 10 Canadians who wanted to be in that top tax bracket so much that after being rejected 3 times from Canadian Med schools they went away to become doctors then came back here. People are banging down doors to make it to that the top tax bracket. NO ONE and I repeat NO ONE says "Man I don't want to make more money because in the top tax bracket I will pay more money." Sorry it is a dumb argument from a dumb paper.

As for the 30 billion dollar a year industry. You change the tax structure there is still going to be a 30 billion dollar a year industry devoted to hiding money from the government. Sorry just because you make the tax code simple isn't going to stop tax cheats from being tax cheats. That is another terrible argument. Wow the right of this country is really losing it.

And I'm sure your friends worked hard for it. Good on them!!

What is fair about a Doctor, with close to a decade of training, earning about 45-55K a year more then a city bus driver making 55k a year?

[punked]

And I'm sure your friends worked hard for it. Good on them!!

What is fair about a Doctor, with close to a decade of training, earning about 45-55K a year more then a city bus driver making 55k a year?

That isn't the point. The point is the paper says because as people earn more money they pay a higher percentage of taxes means they wont want to earn more money. That flies in the face of reality. You can think it is unfair and we can have that argument but the economic argument that somehow our tax system makes it so people don't want to earn more money is a dumb one. You agree with that? People still want to earn more in Canada regardless of the tax system or do you turn down your raise when offered one?

We can have a discussion about fairness in our tax system after we get past your idea that people don't want want to earn more. The paper and your belief is so far off base it isn't even funny.

The right in this country.

[cybercoma]

Because even as you pay more taxes, you're still taking home more money as you earn more money. The only time there might be a disincentive is if you're straddling brackets. A small change in your income may actually mean you take less home.

[punked]

Because even as you pay more taxes, you're still taking home more money as you earn more money. The only time there might be a disincentive is if you're straddling brackets. A small change in your income may actually mean you take less home.

Even in those cases of disincentives we have RRSPs which will lower your income to get you out of that situation. There really should be very few cases where you are straddling tax brackets and can not get your take home down enough that is penalizes you.

Edited April 24, 2011 by punked

[Guest Derek L]

Because even as you pay more taxes, you're still taking home more money as you earn more money. The only time there might be a disincentive is if you're straddling brackets. A small change in your income may actually mean you take less home.

beat me to it

[cybercoma]

beat me to it

I may have beat you to it, but in essence I agree with punked.

[punked]

beat me to it

He is saying your argument is wrong. He is not agreeing with your crazy idea of a flat tax with no corporate income tax. Sorry you really don't get this do you?

[Guest Derek L]

Even in those cases of disincentives we have RRSPs which will lower your income to get you out of that situation. There really should be very few cases where you are straddling tax brackets and can not get your take up down enough that is penalizes you.

29% on income over $128800K a year......so if one is close to that, why would someone want to go over by 10-15k a year?

[Evening Star]

Because they'll still keep 71% of it?

29% on income over $128800K a year......so if one is close to that, why would someone want to go over by 10-15k a year?