Should the Canadian rich pay more?

[cybercoma]

So you want to disenfranchise the poor and retired? Huh?

[Rick]

Seems like he's advocating slavery..

Which let's be honest here... is what Conservatives want.

[TimG]

So you want to disenfranchise the poor and retired? Huh?

This is why large consumption taxes are important. A VAT has minimal impact on the poor if the money is refunded in credits but they still have to pay for it which means they feel the impact of increased taxes which come with demanding more services. The worst thing for democracy is where a majority vote for spending that only a minority pay for. Edited January 1, 2012 by TimG

[cybercoma]

This is why large consumption taxes are important. A VAT has minimal impact on the poor if the money is refunded

VATs increase the costs of products. It all depends on the price elasticity of demand for a product. If the demand is inelastic, then the cost will be primarily incurred by the end-user, which means VATs affect the poor. If the demand is very elastic, then the producer is forced to pay the tax because an increase in price will drive down demand. Mostly, the cost of the VAT is split between producer and consumer with the consumer typically bearing most of the burden of the tax. If you're actually talking about sales taxes, levied during the transaction, rather than VATs, those are entirely incurred by the consumer. Either way, it makes no sense whatsoever to say that the consumer wouldn't be affected, especially the low income consumer. The "credits" at the end of the year are moot. If everything were credited and nothing was paid, the tax wouldn't affect anyone and would be pointless. Obviously it's applied on something and paid by someone, usually the consumer or split between the consumer and producer with the consumer usually paying most of it. Of course this will affect the low-income consumer. They need to be budgeting every dollar they make and now things are going to cost more, making it more difficult. Someone with disposable income wouldn't be affected because they have the room to pay more without having to choose between groceries and hydro.

[TimG]

They need to be budgeting every dollar they make and now things are going to cost more, making it more difficult.

That is price they pay for living in a democracy. No representation without taxation.

[cybercoma]

No representation without taxation.

[jacee]

But the point remains. If you pay nothing, why should your vote be the equal of those who pay far, far more? They are contributing much more than you are.

If you can afford more, why should your vote be of more weight than the burned out homeless/disabled/elderly veteran who once fought bravely but now lives with his trauma and ours, and now he can afford nothing?

Your vote has more 'worth' than his?

I don't think so.

[Alberta is Canada]

No The rich should pay less. Why penalize a group that is successful and otherwise contribute to the economy in other means such as consumer spending, creating jobs for other people, the list goes on.

People that are a drain on the social system should pay more...., as they utilize these services more frequently.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

People that are a drain on the social system should pay more...., as they utilize these services more frequently.

OK... So the rich should pay more because they exponentially benefit from public infrastructure to make money.

Gotcha.

Edited January 5, 2012 by MiddleClassCentrist