Gap between rich and poor rising faster in Canada

[Shady]

We're acquiring public debt while the richEST are getting tax cuts.

The study includes all taxes, not just income tax.

However, the lowest income tax rate not 5% as you said, but 15% federal + 5% (or more) provincial:

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/2010_rt-eng.html

Full study report available here:

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/reports/eroding-tax-fairness

Right, so the top 1% is paying 30% in federal income tax, and an additional 10 - 15% in provincial income tax, unless they live in Nova Scotia, in which case they'd pay an additional 21% in provincial income tax. So they're paying 40 - 45% of their income in taxes. So how agin are you paying their tab? By paying a 5% provincial income tax rate and a 10 - 15% federal tax rate? You've got some very fuzzy math there. Your's is a great talking point though. So is the study you cite from the leftwing advocacy group. It's too bad for you that it's not grounded in reality.

And we're acquiring public debt because of a continued global recession in which Canada had no real part in. The last thing one wants to do in slow economic times is raise taxes. Unless of course all you care about is sticking it to a certain group of people under the guise of some subjective concept of fairness. Regardless of if it does damage to the economy, and actually makes the problem you're addressing even worse.

[jacee]

Hymn to Her

On the internet, everyone is a guy until you have live video proof otherwise

[cybercoma]

You're not entitled to other people's ... labour

If only people thought this way.

[jacee]

Right, so the top 1% is paying 30% in federal income tax, and an additional 10 - 15% in provincial income tax, unless they live in Nova Scotia, in which case they'd pay an additional 21% in provincial income tax. So they're paying 40 - 45% of their income in taxes. So how agin are you paying their tab? By paying a 5% provincial income tax rate and a 10 - 15% federal tax rate? You've got some very fuzzy math there. Your's is a great talking point though. So is the study you cite from the leftwing advocacy group. It's too bad for you that it's not grounded in reality.

And we're acquiring public debt because of a continued global recession in which Canada had no real part in. The last thing one wants to do in slow economic times is raise taxes. Unless of course all you care about is sticking it to a certain group of people under the guise of some subjective concept of fairness. Regardless of if it does damage to the economy, and actually makes the problem you're addressing even worse.

First of all, don't make assumptions about my personal income or tax status. It's not your concern.

Secondly, for the second time (do you read anything?), the study looks at ALL taxes, not just income tax, and concludes:

More than a decade’s worth of tax cuts have disproportionately lined the pockets of Canada’s most affluent families, says a new tax study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA). The study finds the top 1 percent of families in 2005 paid a lower total tax rate than the bottom 10 percent of families“Canada’s tax system now fails a basic test of fairness.

The full report is a .pdf that I can't copy from, so you'll have to read it to refute. However, the largest tax burden falls on those in the middle of the distribution, not the top.

Finally, might not some of that debt we're accumulating be due to tax breaks for the wealthiEST 1%, corporate welfare subsidies, corporate tax breaks and bailouts ... "stimulus" ... ??

I'll bet you dollars to donuts that the government welfare 'cheque' for one of the richEST 1% of Canadian families FAR EXCEEDS the government welfare cheque for the unemployed.

Edited September 24, 2011 by jacee

[CPCFTW]

First of all, don't make assumptions about my personal income or tax status. It's not your concern.

Secondly, for the second time (do you read anything?), the study looks at ALL taxes, not just income tax, and concludes:

The full report is a .pdf that I can't copy from, so you'll have to read it to refute. However, the largest tax burden falls on those in the middle of the distribution, not the top.

Finally, might not some of that debt we're accumulating be due to tax breaks for the wealthiEST 1%, corporate welfare subsidies, corporate tax breaks and bailouts ... "stimulus" ... ??

I'll bet you dollars to donuts that the government welfare 'cheque' for one of the richEST 1% of Canadian families FAR EXCEEDS the government welfare cheque for the unemployed.

You seem to keep ignoring the fact that much of the income of the top 1% is investment income. This is, of course, taxed at a lower rate not only because it encourages investment, but also because it involves capital investment and risk for the investor.

Do you really think that investment income of the wealthy should be taxed at 30-40%? You are truly clueless if that is the case. The consequences of such a "policy alternative" would be disastrous.

Taxing investment income at a lower rate than employment income is not a "welfare cheque for the wealthy". Your arguments become more asinine by the day.

Edited September 24, 2011 by CPCFTW

[cybercoma]

Do you really think that investment income of the wealthy should be taxed at 30-40%?

It should be taxed at the same rate as the rest of their income. Saying people won't invest because they're taxed on their investment income is like saying people won't work because they're taxed on their employment income. It's simply not true because keeping 60-70% of your investment income is better than not investing at all and getting 0%.

Also, do everyone a favour and cool it with the insulting banter. Calling people's arguments asinine and saying that they are clueless does nothing to further the conversation, nor does it do anything to support your arguments.

Edited September 24, 2011 by cybercoma

[Bob]

CPCFTW, I was having a very similar discussion with my father the other day, and he was telling me the same thing you're saying in here with respect to the reasoning behind the lowered rate at which income generated from investment is taxed. Specifically, we were talking about whether or not the lower tax rate on capital gains was justified. My father echoes what you're saying here, in the sense that he thinks the risk involved with investing in securities/equities as well should be offset by lower rates of tax in order to incentivize investment to create economic growth.

The problem is it's difficult to overcome the rhetoric about how capital gains are mainly a staple of income for the most wealthy of Canadians. It's typically the richest people that earn serious income (in terms of absolute dollars as well as in terms of a proportion of their total income) through capital gains, so lower capital gains taxes end up looking like a "tax break for the rich", which appeals strongly to people like jacee who view successful people with contempt (they're greedy) and who admire losers who can't make a living (they're too honest and good-natured to make it in this cruel world!).

[Bob]

It should be taxed at the same rate as the rest of their income. Saying people won't invest because they're taxed on their investment income is like saying people won't work because they're taxed on their employment income. It's simply not true because keeping 60-70% of your investment income is better than not investing at all and getting 0%.

Also, do everyone a favour and cool it with the insulting banter. Calling people's arguments asinine and saying that they are clueless does nothing to further the conversation, nor does it do anything to support your arguments.

Supporting lower tax rates on capital gains is about incentivizing investment, to offset the risk of investment. I'm not sure I completely accept the argument, but that's how it goes.

[cybercoma]

Supporting lower tax rates on capital gains is about incentivizing investment, to offset the risk of investment. I'm not sure I completely accept the argument, but that's how it goes.

I don't agree at all with the argument. You offset higher risk investments can lead to higher returns. It's a gamble you take to try to make more money faster. That's the incentive, as well as the opportunity to make money without working for it. As far as taxes go, capital gains are income and should be taxed like the rest of their income.

Also, I'm not too keen on the tone of your previous post where those that work for a living are lazy, while those that make money off moving money are "hard-working". I'm sure there are plenty of people that got to the point where they could move money by being hard-working, but let's not be so insulting to those that struggle to make a living as to call them lazy. The vast majority of people bust their asses.

[Bob]

I don't agree at all with the argument. You offset higher risk investments can lead to higher returns. It's a gamble you take to try to make more money faster. That's the incentive, as well as the opportunity to make money without working for it. As far as taxes go, capital gains are income and should be taxed like the rest of their income.

Also, I'm not too keen on the tone of your previous post where those that work for a living are lazy, while those that make money off moving money are "hard-working". I'm sure there are plenty of people that got to the point where they could move money by being hard-working, but let's not be so insulting to those that struggle to make a living as to call them lazy. The vast majority of people bust their asses.

I am attacking the leftist imaginary demon of the wealthy rich capitalist who simply stays rich by "moving money" while fleecing the noble underclass. I've heard this shit for years, especially in an anti-Semitic context with loser blacks complaining of the "Jewish merchants" who "suck money" from their communities by simply owning and operating a variety store (i.e. Crown Height riots). Buying properties, renting them out, maintaining them, etc is a lot of work. We don't live in aristocratic times, anymore. The pathetic envy and covetous nature of the loser left (as CPCFTW has already mentioned) reveals the true nature of the loser left - it isn't about fairness of "equality", it's about resentment of those who have more than they do. And you need to work to get there. I despise leftist rhetoric of the type we see from jacee that expresses contempt for those who are wealthy, as if they simply sit around and watch Oprah all day and are millionaires. It's a sickening narrative of the loser left in order to demean wealthy people and perpetuate this us vs. them class warfare. Typical NDP bullshit, where every idiot working at a Tim Horton's would've been a brain surgeon had it not been for the phantoms of racism, sexism, Islamophobia, or some other imaginary social obstacle that couldn't be overcome because the government (led by benevolent visionaries like jacee) hadn't stepped in deep enough.

Edited September 24, 2011 by Bob

[cybercoma]

That's fine as long as you admit that not everyone that is rich had to work to get there either. Many people inherit their wealth and once you've earned enough money to "live comfortably", let's be honest... it's not hard work like digging ditches is hard work. At the same time, there are many people that work their way up to that level of comfort.

Nonetheless, I still contest that capital gains are income and should be taxed like income. I don't really see the point in applying different rates based on the way a person makes their income, especially if it's going to benefit those that need the benefits the least. Imagine if working income was taxed at a lower rate as not only an incentive for people to find hourly work, but to assist those that don't have the means to move money as a source of income. It seems inconceivable, but theoretical it should be just as conceivable as a reduced rate on capital gains.

[bush_cheney2004]

It should be taxed at the same rate as the rest of their income....

Since the investment income was already taxed when first earned as wages or salary, how do you square this up by taxing capital gains at the very same rate again?

[Bob]

That's fine as long as you admit that not everyone that is rich had to work to get there either. Many people inherit their wealth and once you've earned enough money to "live comfortably", let's be honest... it's not hard work like digging ditches is hard work. At the same time, there are many people that work their way up to that level of comfort.

Nonetheless, I still contest that capital gains are income and should be taxed like income. I don't really see the point in applying different rates based on the way a person makes their income, especially if it's going to benefit those that need the benefits the least. Imagine if working income was taxed at a lower rate as not only an incentive for people to find hourly work, but to assist those that don't have the means to move money as a source of income. It seems inconceivable, but theoretical it should be just as conceivable as a reduced rate on capital gains.

"Many people inherit their wealth"? Who the hell are you talking about? And that wealth WAS earned. As CPCFTW has already explained, even if someone inherits wealth, it's none of your goddamned business, and it was earned by their families for their children and future families, and you have no right to it. Unfortunately, we still have archaic estate taxes in this country that are justified through the envious, covetous, loser leftist rhetoric that you clearly subscribe to and identify with. At least in the USA Bush had the guts to kill what was aptly named the death tax.

As far as losers digging ditches, am I supposed to admire someone who works like a monkey just because he sweats a lot? Why do you glorfy losers who dig ditches because they have nothing of value to offer society? People like that, who were given every opportunity to succeed by living in a free meritocracy and ended up as losers are the ones who should be held in contempt, not placed on pedestals as "hard workers" who ended up digging ditches because they were too dumb to finish high school. I said the same thing to another poster on MLF regarding another issue, but it boils down to the same thing - leftists like you lionize losers and worship weakness. And when you fail, you'll always be able to blame the greedy capitalist (while of course you're not greedy, you just think with enough votes you can steal whatever you want from those who have money) who somehow got rich off of your sweat. I'll never understand it.

[Bob]

Since the investment income was already taxed when first earned as wages or salary, how do you square this up by taxing capital gains at the very same rate again?

Same could be said for property tax, where you pay property tax as an owner every year and still pay tax when you sell the home. And investment properties are taxed at an even higher rate. It's all the product of leftist politicians going after the "greedy rich".

[William Ashley]

"Many people inherit their wealth"? Who the hell are you talking about? And that wealth WAS earned. As CPCFTW has already explained, even if someone inherits wealth, it's none of your goddamned business, and it was earned by their families for their children and future families, and you have no right to it. Unfortunately, we still have archaic estate taxes in this country that are justified through the envious, covetous, loser leftist rhetoric that you clearly subscribe to and identify with. At least in the USA Bush had the guts to kill what was aptly named the death tax.

Well fact is their wealth is not their wealth, in this society everything is on the table, and up for grabs. There is no equality in the system - much like my hard work won't necessarily denote lots of money, it may very well make you lots of money.

How much sweat is not a measure, the fact is there is no measure. However the bottom line is, you arn't entitled to your wealth anymore than I am, or someone else is. If the water company suddenly wants to charge you everything for a glass of water you will quickly see there are no values on living, it is arbitrary.

Much like what is allowed. THE LAND IS MINE, THE RESOURCES ARE MINE.. THEY ARE NOT YOURS.. EVERYTHING IS MINE. Why do I have that right, because I say so. That is the bottom line, that is what holds the boundary to your wealth. Your self entitled fess has no basis in reality, you are convoluted to a system that suits your means and avoids the truth of the situation. WAKE UP! You have nothing but what we let you have. Or you are one of us.. the entitled. You have nothing you don't hold by force or remedy of force, lest we are all equals because I say so.

As far as losers digging ditches, am I supposed to admire someone who works like a monkey just because he sweats a lot? Why do you glorfy losers who dig ditches because they have nothing of value to offer society? People like that, who were given every opportunity to succeed by living in a free meritocracy and ended up as losers are the ones who should be held in contempt, not placed on pedestals as "hard workers" who ended up digging ditches because they were too dumb to finish high school. I said the same thing to another poster on MLF regarding another issue, but it boils down to the same thing - leftists like you lionize losers and worship weakness. And when you fail, you'll always be able to blame the greedy capitalist (while of course you're not greedy, you just think with enough votes you can steal whatever you want from those who have money) who somehow got rich off of your sweat. I'll never understand it.

I just find that line to be conceited and arrogant, you have it by grace or war, nothing else, don't give me this self entitled bs, it doesn't work on other side, nor does it have anything to do with left and right, it has to do with the killers and those who believe in liberty.

Edited September 25, 2011 by William Ashley

[Smallc]

I don't agree at all with the argument. You offset higher risk investments can lead to higher returns. It's a gamble you take to try to make more money faster. That's the incentive, as well as the opportunity to make money without working for it. As far as taxes go, capital gains are income and should be taxed like the rest of their income.

But there's a problem with that. If I sold my business tomorrow for say, $500K, I'd have to pay significant tax as it is, and I'm not going to be rich at the end. Perhaps capital gains need to be scaled as other income is (well, they sort of are, but not really)?

Edited September 25, 2011 by Smallc

[cybercoma]

But there's a problem with that. If I sold my business tomorrow for say, $500K, I'd have to pay significant tax as it is, and I'm not going to be rich at the end. Perhaps capital gains need to be scaled as other income is (well, they sort of are, but not really)?

I'm not suggesting that capital gains needs to be taxed higher than everything else. That wouldn't be fair at all, but I don't see the reason for giving people a break on income earned as a capital gain. It's still income and, like I said, should be taxed at the rate applicable to the amount of income that a person has earned that year. I don't buy the argument that it would stifle investment because keeping 60% (as an example, not a suggestion) of your capital gains is better than earning absolutely nothing because you didn't invest. If you draw a parallel to labour income, saying people will stop investing is like saying income tax is a dis-incentive to work because you don't get to keep all of your income. It's just not the case.

[jacee]

B

Since the investment income was already taxed when first earned as wages or salary, how do you square this up by taxing capital gains at the very same rate again?

Wages or salary were taxed.

Now we're talking about investment income from that, and that's new earnings.

Tax it.

[bush_cheney2004]

B

Wages or salary were taxed.

Now we're talking about investment income from that, and that's new earnings.

Tax it.

Indeed...tax it when earned...tax it when invested...tax it when spent...tax it when inherited.

[CPCFTW]

I'm not suggesting that capital gains needs to be taxed higher than everything else. That wouldn't be fair at all, but I don't see the reason for giving people a break on income earned as a capital gain. It's still income and, like I said, should be taxed at the rate applicable to the amount of income that a person has earned that year. I don't buy the argument that it would stifle investment because keeping 60% (as an example, not a suggestion) of your capital gains is better than earning absolutely nothing because you didn't invest. If you draw a parallel to labour income, saying people will stop investing is like saying income tax is a dis-incentive to work because you don't get to keep all of your income. It's just not the case.

Couple things you aren't considering:

1. First of all, income tax IS a disincentive to working. If you're making 50k/yr and want to work a part time job at $15/hr, you are only going to get about $9/hr on that income. This makes our society less productive as people sit at home watching american idol instead of getting a second job, and lazy people work for 15/hr rather then being forced to obtain higher education or further training.

2.You can't lose money working. You can invest 100k and lose 20k in a few months.

3. Labour doesn't have the same mobility as capital. You usually have to move to avoid labour taxes, and you'd have to hope there is a job there for you. That's not the case with capital. If the canadian government starts taxing dividend and capital gains as personal income, then there will be a flight of capital out of the country into assets that are not so ludicrously taxed.

This suggestion would ravage canadian pension funds, rrsps, and other retirement plans. That is why I said it is asinine. I'm sorry you're unable to comprehend the financial ramifications of such a tax, but it is entirely asinine.

[Guest Derek L]

Couple things you aren't considering:

1. First of all, income tax IS a disincentive to working. If you're making 50k/yr and want to work a part time job at $15/hr, you are only going to get about $9/hr on that income. This makes our society less productive as people sit at home watching american idol instead of getting a second job, and lazy people work for 15/hr rather then being forced to obtain higher education or further training.

2.You can't lose money working. You can invest 100k and lose 20k in a few months.

3. Labour doesn't have the same mobility as capital. You usually have to move to avoid labour taxes, and you'd have to hope there is a job there for you. That's not the case with capital. If the canadian government starts taxing dividend and capital gains as personal income, then there will be a flight of capital out of the country into assets that are not so ludicrously taxed.

This suggestion would ravage canadian pension funds, rrsps, and other retirement plans. That is why I said it is asinine. I'm sorry you're unable to comprehend the financial ramifications of such a tax, but it is entirely asinine.

Exactly, and once more wealth leaves the country, the response will be to go after the wealthy with more taxes………Once they leave, it will be to go after the “working professionals” with six figure incomes, once they leave…..etc etc

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/02/13/fleeing-from-south-africa.html

[Michael Hardner]

I don't see these people leaving, as it's key to their continued prosperity to influence the politics in the country where they're invested. This means being at the center of the action.

[cybercoma]

Not to mention that investors don't just pack up and leave. It's nothing more than a way to blackmail the working class into accepting a two-tier system, where investment income isn't taxed less than wage-labour income. It's nothing short of discrimination of the working class.

[CPCFTW]

Not to mention that investors don't just pack up and leave. It's nothing more than a way to blackmail the working class into accepting a two-tier system, where investment income isn't taxed less than wage-labour income. It's nothing short of discrimination of the working class.

You don't need to "pick up and leave". You can move millions of dollars out of Canadian assets into US or other global assets in seconds from your own home.

Edited September 25, 2011 by CPCFTW

[Bob]

Couple things you aren't considering:

1. First of all, income tax IS a disincentive to working. If you're making 50k/yr and want to work a part time job at $15/hr, you are only going to get about $9/hr on that income. This makes our society less productive as people sit at home watching american idol instead of getting a second job, and lazy people work for 15/hr rather then being forced to obtain higher education or further training.

2.You can't lose money working. You can invest 100k and lose 20k in a few months.

3. Labour doesn't have the same mobility as capital. You usually have to move to avoid labour taxes, and you'd have to hope there is a job there for you. That's not the case with capital. If the canadian government starts taxing dividend and capital gains as personal income, then there will be a flight of capital out of the country into assets that are not so ludicrously taxed.

This suggestion would ravage canadian pension funds, rrsps, and other retirement plans. That is why I said it is asinine. I'm sorry you're unable to comprehend the financial ramifications of such a tax, but it is entirely asinine.

Good points. And of course we've got some nonsense responses from Michael Hardner and cybercoma, the first being some simplistic idea of the evil and influential capitalists shaping public policy (yeah right), and the latter using more class warfare rhetoric about the oppressed "working class".