Gap between rich and poor rising faster in Canada

[Moonlight Graham]

But ... do you like protests? Perhaps we could be protest buddies.

Cheers! *raises his Make Poverty History bracelet*

Edited October 2, 2011 by Moonlight Graham

[Pliny]

Not likely, and let me rephrase that ...

The lazy richEST 1% don't even pay proportionately as much in taxes as the hard working ordinary rich guy, or the hard working ordinary working guy.

Governments are not economic morons, jacee. They work the numbers. They would rather have a dollar off of a million middle class people than 1000 dollars off of the 50 richest Canadians. You can tax the rich at a thousand times the rate and you won't get as much from them as from the remainder of the population.

It is ridiculous to think that taxing the rich at high levels is a solution to anything.

In truth, there is no shortage of people who wish to divest the rich of their money or at least obtain a portion of it for themselves or their interests, which I am certain you will find is the case once you marry Moonlight Graham. Thieves are always at his door.

[jacee]

No he's not. He earns his money through employment, most of that money is taxed at the highest marginal rate. Then the leftover money that has already been subjected to income tax, is invested and subjected to investment income tax. It's not that hard to figure out. Do try to keep up.

Now let's say he worked his ass off as a teenager to adulthood, got a great job and earned 100k for 5yrs, then started his own green energy business with the money he had saved and was very successful, then sold his business 10yrs later for 100 million. He's now 40yrs old with 100 million dolars which he has earned and invested. He returns to work making 100k per year, but his lower taxed investment income is 5-6 million per year. Now he is an evil predatory rich elite?

Whoa!

Derek was halfheartedly trying the old "double dip" two-step, claiming that the money invested had 'already been taxed' as income.

But of course the investment income (from savings already taxed) is new earnings and taxed as such, albeit (currently) at a lower rate.

That's all.

As for your mythical character - we'll call him Jake because I think we shouldn't meddle in Derek's personal affairs - Jake the industrious fellow ... is within the law.

Should the law be changed to tax Jake's investment income more?

I believe it should.

Yes, he's worked hard and smart for the money and now it his money itself earns him a living, though he chooses to keep working. Good for him. He has earned his reward.

But does that also earn him a gift (ie, money saved in income tax from investments) from the rest of us taxpayers?

Maybe on some of it - a reasonable living perhaps - but I don't believe that Jake should get a tax break - that the rest of us have to make up from our employment earnings - on his investment earnings.

I feel particularly strongly about that now that most large corporations are earning megaprofits from worker poverty in China, etc. There is NO WAY I should be picking up income tax slack for rich people - much more able to pay than me - who are earning investment income from overseas poverty wages while the jobs that should be in Canada have been 'outsourced' to make it easier for rich people to get richer while I pay their taxes.

And by the way, it isn't just poverty wages that are saving corporations megabucks and skyrocketing investment income: It's cheap quality of materials and processes, such that children's toys are toxic and purchases fall apart the first time you use them. But they carry the same label and price tag as before.

I don't care whether a company says it's a Canadian company, it's NOT Canadian quality products. And I'm not paying more for crappy products while also paying more Canadian taxes for Canadians so that some rich people can get richer investing in corporations that make megaprofits from crappy work and call it 'Canadian' while keeping the money and the work overseas so it isn't taxed in Canada, and the jobs are not in Canada. Screw you!

SCREW you! Make your money here, invest it in jobs for Canadians, PROVE that money invested created jobs for Canadians, made products that are good enough to be called 'Canadian' and pay taxes in Canada. THEN we'll talk.

Well ... I guess I kind of went on a rant there. Nothing personal CPC, Derek.

It's just the way it is to the vast majority of Canadians.

Investment income isn't good or bad intrinsically: It's how and where it's invested that matters. And if - like GoldmanSachs in the US - you are earning megabucks betting that people will lose their homes, and then making sure they do so you can 'win' ... and then getting kudos for "the best trade of the year" ... OR you're making money off jobs that should be in Canada ... screw your welfare rate taxes for the rich!

Is that clearer? Do I have a point?

Look back at the thread title ... we have a problem ... and continuing on in the same way will exacerbate the problem. WE need to solve the problem, not make it worse.

Edited October 2, 2011 by jacee

[jacee]

Cheers! *raises his Make Poverty History bracelet*

So ... Mr megarich protester ... when's the next flight to Wall Street ... or do we teletransport?

[Michael Hardner]

Now you're advocating the government pays for basic cable? /facepalm

Tongue in cheek, my friend.

[Michael Hardner]

It may very well be, but even that policy fails when you consider that SubSaharan Africans (and some First Nations) can't even get enough potable water.

Ok. How many channels do they get ?

[Michael Hardner]

Wow... you can't be serious?

The minimum standard is to have basic cable to be entertained? Are you insane? You actually believe that's what "basic" denotes?

I lived for years without cable so I could save money and pay off debt/invest. You think my tax dollars should go to unemployed "criminals" so they can be more entertained than me?

Sickening.

You're an easy mark. I like my humour, like my martinis and my turkey sandwiches - very dry...

[Michael Hardner]

Sorry folks...MH and I were having a little fun and did not literally mean "basic cable" as an entitlement. It was a modern metaphor for what many do gooders define as an entitlement to be funded by government and financed by taxes. Before addressable digital set top boxes, we would just steal cable, right?

I knew *you* would get it.

[Guest Derek L]

No he's not. He earns his money through employment, most of that money is taxed at the highest marginal rate. Then the leftover money that has already been subjected to income tax, is invested and subjected to investment income tax. It's not that hard to figure out. Do try to keep up.

Now let's say he worked his ass off as a teenager to adulthood, got a great job and earned 100k for 5yrs, then started his own green energy business with the money he had saved and was very successful, then sold his business 10yrs later for 100 million. He's now 40yrs old with 100 million dolars which he has earned and invested. He returns to work making 100k per year, but his lower taxed investment income is 5-6 million per year. Now he is an evil predatory rich elite?

A more apt narrative would be he obtained a degree in Engineering & Management well serving in the air force…….When he got out in his thirties, with a young family worked in various private industry jobs, all the well going back to University to obtain his law degree. After receiving it, he put it to use, coupled with his network of friends, former coworkers/employers/contacts to eek out a comfortable living for himself and his family……….

He hardly had anything handed to him, for his father was a former Air Force then AIR BC pilot and his mother worked part time at Safeway…….Doesn’t sound Bourgeois to me……….Several times, well returning to university, he and his wife borrowed money form their parents to pay the bills……..What a Fat Cat eh?

Now in their forties, with children approaching high school graduation, the married couple, though earning cosiderabliy more than the average household, still have bills to pay and choose to invest a portion of their already taxed income………Should they have to pay more in tax on their investments? If so, why?

Edited October 2, 2011 by Derek L

[jacee]

Governments are not economic morons, jacee. They work the numbers. They would rather have a dollar off of a million middle class people than 1000 dollars off of the 50 richest Canadians. You can tax the rich at a thousand times the rate and you won't get as much from them as from the remainder of the population.

It is ridiculous to think that taxing the rich at high levels is a solution to anything.

First of all, government is not "they", it is us ... every one of us. . We pay their salaries, they work for us ... every one of us. We tell them what to do. Unfortunately, sometimes they forget that and only listen to and pander to the megarich, giving them tax breaks that the rest of us pay for. Enough.

Secondly, in Canada the wealthiEST 1% is 155,000 households, not "50",

And finally, as I said above, we have a problem with an increasing income gap because the megarich are making their megaprofits outside the country and middle class jobs are disappearing here in Canada, so the middle class can no longer afford to pay for the tax breaks for the rich that are supposed to be for creating jobs for Canadians, but aren't.

If you want a tax break, you should first prove you have created jobs for middle class Canadians, ie, created more taxpayers (to make up for your tax breaks).

THAT would make sense to me.

However, the present situation where nominally 'Canadian' corporations. Steal jobs from Canadians (and taxes from all of us) by operating overseas making crappy products (also nominally 'Canadian') and then getting tax breaks as if it is all 'Canadian', when not one Canadian got a job (and paid taxes) out of it. NO. That's a scam, a ripoff of all other Canadians who have to pick up the slack for the megarich without the advantage of more jobs. And to add insult to injury, we buy their stinkin crappy 'Canadian' products and they fall apart!

I haven't done the research , would like to have the data to do it, but it certainly appears to me that the income gap is increasing because the megarich are getting tax breaks for stealing jobs from Canadians, while they used to (in theory) get tax breaks for creating jobs (and income taxes) for us.

You want a tax break? Create a Canadian taxpayer. ... and prove you did ... because the so-called 'job creators' aren't creating them HERE!

Now, do I have a point?

In truth, there is no shortage of people who wish to divest the rich of their money or at least obtain a portion of it for themselves or their interests, which I am certain you will find is the case once you marry Moonlight Graham. Thieves are always at his door.

Good grief! I've barely met the man! I'm still waiting to hear back about a possible first date! Then I have to find out whether his money comes from ethical sources.

I hear Wall Street is beautiful at this time of year.

[jacee]

A more apt narrative would be he obtained a degree in Engineering & Management well serving in the air force…….When he got out in his thirties, with a young family worked in various private industry jobs, all the well going back to University to obtain his law degree. After receiving it, he put it to use, compelled with his network of friends, former coworkers/employers/contacts to eek out a comfortable living for himself and his family……….

He hardly had anything handed to him, for his father was a former Air Force then AIR BC pilot and his mother worked part time at Safeway…….Doesn’t sound Bourgeois to me……….Several times, well returning to university, he and his wife borrowed money form their parents to pay the bills……..What a Fat Cat eh?

Now in their forties, with children approaching high school graduation, the married couple, though earning cosiderabliy more than the average household, still have bills to pay and choose to invest a portion of their already taxed income………Should they have to pay more in tax on their investments? If so, why?

Oh ... so you really do believe that 'double dip' crapola.

Let me educate you.

The principal you invested was already taxed. The income you earn from the principal has not been taxed, is income, and thus subject to income tax, albeit currently at lower rates.

(In my ideal world, it would only be taxed at lower rates if you prove that your investment created Canadian jobs.)

It's not rocket science.

Edited October 2, 2011 by jacee

[Oleg Bach]

Good god its like reasoning with a brick wall.

Even with the lower percentages the rich person pays far more dollars in taxes than a poor person. That rich person deserves a lower rate because the fact of him being rich helps out more people than the average joe by hiring, investing, spending, saving in a bank etc.

And to say rich people don't work hard is proposterous. They work hard and play harder.

Don`t tell me that a rich lawyer works hard - when all he has to do is collude with one of his fellows - How intense is the labour of uttering a lie in secret...a few words and you win the case and take the poor guys hard earned money - sure some rich people work hard - and sure some are just plain clever lazy theives....who as I say have some collusive lawyer on their payroll.

[Guest Derek L]

Oh ... so you really do believe that 'double dip' crapola.

Let me educate you.

The principal you invested was already taxed. The income you ear from the principal has not been taxed, is income, and thus subject to income tax, albeit currently at lower rates.

(In my ideal world, it would only be taxed at lower rates if you prove that your investment created Canadian jobs.)

It's not rocket science.

What would you say is a fair tax rate on investment?

[jacee]

What would you say is a fair tax rate on investment?

Investment in what?

Does it create Canadian jobs?

Can you prove it?

How much income tax for Canadians do those jobs create?

Do I look like an economist?

(No. I look like a retired person wearing a blanket.)

Sorry, I won't get into details without the data.

But my opinion would be that if your investment creates new jobs for Canadians, you might be entitled to current investment tax breaks IF you replaced that amount of income tax with income taxes from those new jobs.

Simple concept.

You want an investment tax break?

Create a Canadian taxpayer.

Investing in nominally 'Canadian' corporations that do not create jobs for Canadians ... ?

No tax break.

[Guest Derek L]

Investment in what?

Does it create Canadian jobs?

Can you prove it?

How much income tax for Canadians do those jobs create?

Do I look like an economist?

(No. I look like a retired person wearing a blanket.)

Sorry, I won't get into details without the data.

But my opinion would be that if your investment creates new jobs for Canadians, you might be entitled to current investment tax breaks IF you replaced that amount of income tax with income taxes from those new jobs.

Simple concept.

You want an investment tax break?

Create a Canadian taxpayer.

Investing in nominally 'Canadian' corporations that do not create jobs for Canadians ... ?

No tax break.

To be quite honest, I don’t know each and every investment that I have, I leave that to my Wood Gundy advisor….Our portfolio is diverse….Bonds, GICs, Mutual Funds, RRSP, Stocks & options etc….Regardless, I put my money out into the economy, as opposed squirreling it away in a Savings account or under my mattress…

Your sentiment is skewed though….Should we penalize foreign investment in Canada that creates jobs? Quid pro quo……….Why should we discourage foreign growth also? What good are all those Canadian jobs if we have no one to sell their services/products to?

[Moonlight Graham]

So ... Mr megarich protester ... when's the next flight to Wall Street ... or do we teletransport?

I usually travel by X-Wing, though sometimes Delorean (w/ Flux Capacitor) if I forgot to tape my favorite TV show.

[blueblood]

Investment in what?

Does it create Canadian jobs?

Can you prove it?

How much income tax for Canadians do those jobs create?

Do I look like an economist?

(No. I look like a retired person wearing a blanket.)

Sorry, I won't get into details without the data.

But my opinion would be that if your investment creates new jobs for Canadians, you might be entitled to current investment tax breaks IF you replaced that amount of income tax with income taxes from those new jobs.

Simple concept.

You want an investment tax break?

Create a Canadian taxpayer.

Investing in nominally 'Canadian' corporations that do not create jobs for Canadians ... ?

No tax break.

REALLY???

Here's a simple concept, the growth of the developing world is one of the reasons canada has weathered the recession as well as it did. Canada tends to make things the developing world wants. The better asia etc. Do, the better canada does. In western MB and saskatchewan people are saying "what recession?"

[jacee]

I usually travel by X-Wing, though sometimes Delorean (w/ Flux Capacitor) if I forgot to tape my favorite TV show.

Ya well I don't know what any of that means so I think we'd better start with some basic communication before we complicate things too much.

[Moonlight Graham]

Ya well I don't know what any of that means so I think we'd better start with some basic communication before we complicate things too much.

Well, lets just say neither of those modes of transpo runs on gasoline & so emits zero CO2 emissions. I take it you're not a fan of sci-fi movies from the 80's? Hmm you may either be a lot older than me or a lot younger.

[jacee]

To be quite honest, I don’t know each and every investment that I have, I leave that to my Wood Gundy advisor….Our portfolio is diverse….Bonds, GICs, Mutual Funds, RRSP, Stocks & options etc….Regardless, I put my money out into the economy, as opposed squirreling it away in a Savings account or under my mattress…

Your sentiment is skewed though….Should we penalize foreign investment in Canada that creates jobs? Quid pro quo……….Why should we discourage foreign growth also? What good are all those Canadian jobs if we have no one to sell their services/products to?

We are fed the line that 'job creators' deserve tax reductions. Because. Creating jobs brings in more income tax revenue for Canada.

That's the theory.

I say investors/advisors should provide evidence that jobs resulting in tax revenues for Canada actually were created.

Yes investment, in theory, helps everyone everywhere.

In reality, money invested in companies operating outside Canada does not contribute much to Canada.

I think the 'job creators' need to prove that they are creating jobs for Canadians because frankly, it's more important for an unemployed Canadian and his/her family to have a liveable wage than it is for the wealthiEST to have a tax break.

[jacee]

Well, lets just say neither of those modes of transpo runs on gasoline & so emits zero CO2 emissions. I take it you're not a fan of sci-fi movies from the 80's? Hmm you may either be a lot older than me or a lot younger.

I suspect a lot older, since I'm retired.

But thanks for the proposal. It made my day.

It's nice to be appreciated for my brain.

[cybercoma]

We are fed the line that 'job creators' deserve tax reductions.

"[T]he more civilisation advances, the more it is compelled to cover the ills it necessarily creates with the cloak of love, to embellish them, or to deny their existence [...] with the declaration: The exploiting class exploits the oppressed class solely and exclusively in the interest of the exploited class itself; and if the latter fails to appreciate this, and even becomes rebellious, it thereby shows the basest ingratitude to its benefactors, the exploiters." -Engels (1877) The Origin of Family, Private Property, and State

[jacee]

"[T]he more civilisation advances, the more it is compelled to cover the ills it necessarily creates with the cloak of love, to embellish them, or to deny their existence [...] with the declaration: The exploiting class exploits the oppressed class solely and exclusively in the interest of the exploited class itself; and if the latter fails to appreciate this, and even becomes rebellious, it thereby shows the basest ingratitude to its benefactors, the exploiters." -Engels (1877) The Origin of Family, Private Property, and State

Well then you can count me rebellious and basely ungrateful.

[Jack Weber]

"[T]he more civilisation advances, the more it is compelled to cover the ills it necessarily creates with the cloak of love, to embellish them, or to deny their existence [...] with the declaration: The exploiting class exploits the oppressed class solely and exclusively in the interest of the exploited class itself; and if the latter fails to appreciate this, and even becomes rebellious, it thereby shows the basest ingratitude to its benefactors, the exploiters." -Engels (1877) The Origin of Family, Private Property, and State

Now I understand why all those company representatives looked down thier noses at me during contract negotiation...

Actually,I already understood this before ever reading this quote...

[Guest Derek L]

We are fed the line that 'job creators' deserve tax reductions. Because. Creating jobs brings in more income tax revenue for Canada.

That's the theory.

I say investors/advisors should provide evidence that jobs resulting in tax revenues for Canada actually were created.

Yes investment, in theory, helps everyone everywhere.

In reality, money invested in companies operating outside Canada does not contribute much to Canada.

I think the 'job creators' need to prove that they are creating jobs for Canadians because frankly, it's more important for an unemployed Canadian and his/her family to have a liveable wage than it is for the wealthiEST to have a tax break.

Well let’s use a little linear regression…………..If less(or none) investment was made, would there be an increase in jobs? Generally speaking, when the stock market is doing poorly, what’s the outcome in terms of employment in the workforce?

And though you try and separate companies and nations, this is a false dictum….Many Canadians, working in Canada, work for foreign companies……..Just as many people in other countries work for Canadian companies……….You can’t put the globalization genie back into the bottle……..Look at the result of the very few isolationist countries on the planet…..would you want to mirror conditions there?