.

[Signals.Cpl]

And what do hard line communist countries have to do with Canada?

Your example about 60% has nothing to do with Canada. The govt isn't giving somebody earning 59k money because they are poor - they're taking taxes from them. The govt is giving them, and you, a whole bunch of services - health care, education, military, policing and the courts, roads and infrastructure (which has been allowed to crumble), food safety (which has been cut back) etc etc etc.

I am not saying Canada now, What I am saying is Canada as the vision some of the people on this forum have. Overtax the rich to support the poor is not the answer. I think we need a fair taxation system where your work ethic, handwork and intelligence are rewarded rather then punished by excessive taxation. And another thing, you want to make money count? Fix the taxation system, close loopholes and make the tax code more efficient.

[Topaz]

I am not saying Canada now, What I am saying is Canada as the vision some of the people on this forum have. Overtax the rich to support the poor is not the answer. I think we need a fair taxation system where your work ethic, handwork and intelligence are rewarded rather then punished by excessive taxation. And another thing, you want to make money count? Fix the taxation system, close loopholes and make the tax code more efficient.

Tax loops, closing them, excellent, but you won't find a party that will do that because that would be hurting themselves, as would taxing the mega rich or the next level down.

[Vendetta]

I would say being in the top 5% qualifies as being rich. But that of course somebody that's super rich should pay a higher percentage of their income than somebody that just squeaked into the rich category. Or income tax brackets top out at 29% for income over 130,000. We need higher brackets for higher incomes.

90,000 for a household is not rich. If 2 people bring in that much thats 180,000. That is pretty well off for an average family of four. I'd say start the higher tax rates at around 250,000 per household, progressively increasing for each half million over that. Randomly pulled those numbers from the sky but sounds like a reasonable place to start.

First we need a new election because it gets more and more obvious everyday that the election fraud robocalls were engineered by the Harper Conservatives.

[Fletch 27]

Its clear the Liberals were behind the election fraud! Crytal Clear!

[Signals.Cpl]

Tax loops, closing them, excellent, but you won't find a party that will do that because that would be hurting themselves, as would taxing the mega rich or the next level down.

We need to revitalize our democracy then.

[Signals.Cpl]

Its clear the Liberals were behind the election fraud! Crytal Clear!

It was the NDP...

[Fletch 27]

YES! The Coalition of the brain-dead! I have stated all along that this coalition of the handicapped has a Hidden Agenda!! ITS OUTED!!!!!!!!!!

It was the NDP...

[Michael Hardner]

YES! The Coalition of the brain-dead! I have stated all along that this coalition of the handicapped has a Hidden Agenda!! ITS OUTED!!!!!!!!!!

Fletch - see the Rules and Guidelines on insults.

[CPCFTW]

90,000 for a household is not rich. If 2 people bring in that much thats 180,000. That is pretty well off for an average family of four. I'd say start the higher tax rates at around 250,000 per household, progressively increasing for each half million over that. Randomly pulled those numbers from the sky but sounds like a reasonable place to start.

First we need a new election because it gets more and more obvious everyday that the election fraud robocalls were engineered by the Harper Conservatives.

No one taxes based on household income. What kind of commie nonsense is this?

[CPCFTW]

There is a limit. Currently in Canada it's 29 percent on income over 139k. So on your 300k taxable (don't forget all your tax breaks) income you would be paying about 76k in taxes for an effective rate of 25%. That's too low.

I would say being in the top 5% qualifies as being rich. But that of course somebody that's super rich should pay a higher percentage of their income than somebody that just squeaked into the rich category. Or income tax brackets top out at 29% for income over 130,000. We need higher brackets for higher incomes.

Yes 29% to the federal government in income taxes... plus 10-16% (or 21% in NS) to the provincial governments. That is 39-45% (or 50% in NS) of your income going to government already.

Then you have property taxes, and sales taxes (5 to 15%).

People making over 130k in employment income are generally already paying over 50% of their income in total taxes to the government.

People with taxable investment income already paid (or their parents paid) taxes on the money they are investing, and are paying smaller additional taxes on top of that.

Why don't you do a little more research before plotting to reform society?

Edited May 26, 2012 by CPCFTW

[CPCFTW]

There is a limit. Currently in Canada it's 29 percent on income over 139k. So on your 300k taxable (don't forget all your tax breaks) income you would be paying about 76k in taxes for an effective rate of 25%. That's too low.

What "tax breaks" would those be? Makes for a nice sound bite though, doesn't it?

Add this to your research list, then get back to me so that I can explain the economic (and moral) reasoning behind any so-called "breaks" in taxes for the wealthy.

Edited May 26, 2012 by CPCFTW

[madmax]

What "tax breaks" would those be? Makes for a nice sound bite though, doesn't it?

Add this to your research list, then get back to me so that I can explain the economic (and moral) reasoning behind any so-called "breaks" in taxes for the wealthy.

My Friend just had his taxes done in April and was complaining.

He paid $60,000

He made just over $300,000

Edited May 26, 2012 by madmax

[CPCFTW]

My Friend just had his taxes done in April and was complaining.

He paid $60,000

He made just over $300,000

Sweet meaningless anecdote.

And 60k is a lot more taxes than most people will ever pay in taxes. I'm sure he has every right to complain about those taxes.. You won't pay just 60k on 300k in personal employment income, so he must have some kind of investment income (and he has presumably already paid taxes on the income required to get the capital to make that investment).

I never denied there are tax breaks. But the tax breaks that are available are designed to encourage investment/savings, and make it worthwhile for investors to take an investment risk.

The personal tax breaks that the left loves to complain about also have very little effect on government tax revenues. This may come as a surprise, but there are not that many people in Canada like your friend.

Edited May 26, 2012 by CPCFTW

[bleeding heart]

My Friend just had his taxes done in April and was complaining.

He paid $60,000

He made just over $300,000

20% is too high!

Hell, any amount is too high!

[jacee]

Yes 29% to the federal government in income taxes... plus 10-16% (or 21% in NS) to the provincial governments. That is 39-45% (or 50% in NS) of your income going to government already.

Then you have property taxes, and sales taxes (5 to 15%).

People making over 130k in employment income are generally already paying over 50% of their income in total taxes to the government.

People with taxable investment income already paid (or their parents paid) taxes on the money they are investing, and are paying smaller additional taxes on top of that.

Why don't you do a little more research before plotting to reform society?

People with investment income are taxed on the earnings, not the capital.

[CPCFTW]

People with investment income are taxed on the earnings, not the capital.

What's your point?

The capital didn't appear out of nowhere. It was earned and taxes were paid on those earnings.

[punked]

What's your point?

The capital didn't appear out of nowhere. It was earned and taxes were paid on those earnings.

Yah it didn't come out of no where. They inherited that money fair and square because their great great grandparents worked very hard to generate that money so their kids, grand kids, and great grand kids could pay less taxes then every other citizens. They will pass on the capital investment after they have lived off it as well.

Edited May 27, 2012 by punked

[Bryan]

My Friend just had his taxes done in April and was complaining.

He paid $60,000

He made just over $300,000

$60,000 is a lot of money for one person to pay in income taxes, regardless of what percentage that might be.

[bleeding heart]

$60,000 is a lot of money for one person to pay in income taxes, regardless of what percentage that might be.

OK, but the percentage matters more.

$6 000 from $30 000 is more profound than $60 000 from $300 000. The former gets hurt more, so that's the direction in which rational sympathy would move.

[Bryan]

OK, but the percentage matters more.

No it doesn't. You don't know what the higher earner's expenses and liabilities are. 60 grand is a LOT of money, anyone who pays that much in federal income tax is already more than paying their share.

$6 000 from $30 000 is more profound than $60 000 from $300 000. The former gets hurt more, so that's the direction in which rational sympathy would move.

No. $60,000 is more profound, regardless of what income level it's drawn from. People who work hard to create more income should be rewarded for it, not punished. They'd still be paying a lot more in actual tax dollars if the percentages were the same, they should not have to also pay a higher percentage on top of that.

[cybercoma]

$60,000 is a lot of money for one person to pay in income taxes, regardless of what percentage that might be.

What a silly claim. Someone makes $6 million in a year and you would still say $60,000 is a lot?

[cybercoma]

No it doesn't. You don't know what the higher earner's expenses and liabilities are.

This is even sillier. What is wrong with you?

I'm sorry, CRA. I can't afford to pay that because I spent it all.

Really, I feel bad for you.

[Rick]

No it doesn't. You don't know what the higher earner's expenses and liabilities are.

Who knew...you were related to Patrick Ewing.

[bleeding heart]

No it doesn't. You don't know what the higher earner's expenses and liabilities are. 60 grand is a LOT of money, anyone who pays that much in federal income tax is already more than paying their share.

You're playing a semantics game. Of course there'll be exceptions (to any scenario) but we're talking an all-things-being-equal hypothetical here.

20% is harder to pay for people of lower income than of higher income.

The exceptions are only when the lower-income person has handled his money very well, and the higher income person is a moron.

That's it.

No. $60,000 is more profound, regardless of what income level it's drawn from.

It isn't only that you're flatly mistaken; you're being preposterous.

People who work hard to create more income should be rewarded for it, not punished.

They are rewared for it. The income is its own reward.

Or perhaps you think there should be a "rich tax," taken from the rest of us and given as a bonus to the rich, to reward them for their success.

(I shouldn't give you any ideas, I know.)

They'd still be paying a lot more in actual tax dollars if the percentages were the same, they should not have to also pay a higher percentage on top of that.

Now you're making an entirely different argument, for....reasons unstated.

In our hypothetical scenario (based on a poster's real-life experience) both the low-income and the high-income earner pay the same tax rate.

And you, incredibly, think it's a greater burden for the fellow with ten times the income.

Edited May 28, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Vendetta]

I know Conservatives would love to change the subject but this thread is dedicated to the discussion of the massive Conservative election fraud, and the resulting illegitimate "majority" government illegally forced on Canadians. This attack on our democracy makes me ill.