Walkom: "These high-income docs want the rich to pay"

[Michael Hardner]

It sits in the company bank account until it is paid out to a shareholder or employee. Every cent of corporate profits is taxed when it leaves the company.

There are other ways it can leave the company.

[TimG]

There are other ways it can leave the company.

How? Edited March 23, 2012 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

How?

Transfer to other subsidiaries, buying assets, acquiring other companies...

[TimG]

Transfer to other subsidiaries, buying assets, acquiring other companies...

Capital expenditures are business expenses but the cost is recovered over time. This means money spent on capital acquistions is not profit. If another company is acquired the owners must pay capital gains which means the government is still getting its piece of the profit from the buying company.

Transfers to subsidiaries are not tax free unless they are legimate business expenses which means they are not profits. That said, companies can play games with internal costing which allow money to moved to the juristiction with the best tax rates but it is still taxed.

Edited March 23, 2012 by TimG

[CPCFTW]

Transfer to other subsidiaries, buying assets, acquiring other companies...

Buying assets and acquiring companies? Come on Michael you can do better than that. If they acquire a company then the owners of the acquired company have to pay taxes on their capital gains and the acquiring company has to pay taxes on future profits. Assets? Most businesses require assets to operate. Income and gains on financial assets are taxed.

[msj]

Buying assets and acquiring companies? Come on Michael you can do better than that.

Depends on what is being sold. If someone comes along and buys the shares of my Qualified Small business then I get a tax free capital gain.

Even if it isn't qualified, I would only pay tax on 50% of the capital gain rather than 100% which is a tremendous tax break.

[Wild Bill]

@WB re

THE AMOUNT OF TAX MONEY YOU CAN GET FROM THE NON-RICH WORKERS IS FAR, FAR, FAR GREATER THAN YOU CAN TAKE FROM THE RICH!

Irrelevant.

The nonrich are tapped out.

The rich are not.

We need to collect more tax money to pay for public services.

The rich need to pay more.

Simple math.

You missed it completely! If you had actually done the math you would have seen that you could take ALL money the rich have and it would be a drop in the bucket compared to what governments can get by taxing ordinary people.

I actually said that before but I guess you are reading as well as math challenged.

My point still stands. There are FAR more ordinary taxpayers than millionaires! Talk of making the rich pay is all emotion and no sense. Making the rich have no money left at all wouldn't change a damn thing. It's just too small a percentage. So why talk about it?

Listening to a poltician (usually NDP but not always) tell you he will "make the rich pay their share" is just a scam to appeal to your emotions and not your brain.

[cybercoma]

Making the rich have no money left at all wouldn't change a damn thing.

Really, Bill? Come on, man.

[madmax]

How about Doctors for Lower Medical Services Prices? I guess it doesn't have the same ring.

Where do you find Medical Treatment more affordable and accessible then in Canada?

We all want lower medical service pricing.. the Government sets the pricing that can be billed.

Some goverments allow significant users fees and delistings.

Canada has the most affordable healthcare in the world.

Yes the doctors resisted this and there are some dinosaurs that would love to bring back Private Medicare .. which would really bust your hiney if you think that our services are costly today.. let alone all the insurance BS and denials that occur in these more costly systems.

So.. there are some decent doctors whom make a decent living and are saying there is an unbalance in the taxation system that punishes those with the least amount of resources...

Nothing new here....

[WLDB]

jacee, you would put behind bars people such as Thomas Edison, Steve Jobs, James Cameron, Guy Laliberté simply because they became very, very rich?

I'd put James Cameron in prison for making bad movies.

[CPCFTW]

Where do you find Medical Treatment more affordable and accessible then in Canada?

We all want lower medical service pricing.. the Government sets the pricing that can be billed.

Some goverments allow significant users fees and delistings.

Canada has the most affordable healthcare in the world.

Yes the doctors resisted this and there are some dinosaurs that would love to bring back Private Medicare .. which would really bust your hiney if you think that our services are costly today.. let alone all the insurance BS and denials that occur in these more costly systems.

So.. there are some decent doctors whom make a decent living and are saying there is an unbalance in the taxation system that punishes those with the least amount of resources...

Nothing new here....

Sure the costs might be cheaper.. The problem is that it is free and everyone can go to the doctor for every cough, fever, headache, lump, or bump they have.

That's the key problem with making a service free.

If goverments made massages free then the cost of a single massage to the taxpayer might be lower, but the total cost of all massages will skyrocket because me and every other tom, dick, and harry will be getting massages every night.

If doctors want to balance the budget then reduce the costs of their services or limit the amount of free service the public can get. It's not fair to compare a doctor's income which is essentially taken from taxpayers based on the demand for a free service, to the income of a worker who actually has to bill the end user for his service (ie. Anyone in the private sector).

Edited March 24, 2012 by CPCFTW

[Topaz]

Taxing the rich may be a necessity, with 500,000 on EI and another what 1-2 mil with no jobs, the middle-income is being reduced and if the provinces and the feds don't find jobs,good paying, and get these people back to work than the rich ARE going to be paying more. Depending on the province, welfare is up and so is people with depression, so its costing by these people not working. I know of a guy, couldn't find job in his area, got one 2 hours away, the full time job turned into part time, his pay for the year, 3900.00!!So what he going to do, go to welfare? He doesn't want to but what the choice, work for nothing?

[bush_cheney2004]

.... I know of a guy, couldn't find job in his area, got one 2 hours away, the full time job turned into part time, his pay for the year, 3900.00!!So what he going to do, go to welfare? He doesn't want to but what the choice, work for nothing?

He could just steal from the rich directly, and cut out the government middle man.

[Bonam]

Taxing the rich may be a necessity, with 500,000 on EI and another what 1-2 mil with no jobs, the middle-income is being reduced and if the provinces and the feds don't find jobs,good paying, and get these people back to work than the rich ARE going to be paying more. Depending on the province, welfare is up and so is people with depression, so its costing by these people not working. I know of a guy, couldn't find job in his area, got one 2 hours away, the full time job turned into part time, his pay for the year, 3900.00!!So what he going to do, go to welfare? He doesn't want to but what the choice, work for nothing?

What's he to do? Keep looking for another job maybe?

[Shady]

What's he to do? Keep looking for another job maybe?

Why? Then he might have to work more than one day a week.

[jacee]

You missed it completely! If you had actually done the math you would have seen that you could take ALL money the rich have and it would be a drop in the bucket compared to what governments can get by taxing ordinary people.

I actually said that before but I guess you are reading as well as math challenged.

My point still stands. There are FAR more ordinary taxpayers than millionaires! Talk of making the rich pay is all emotion and no sense. Making the rich have no money left at all wouldn't change a damn thing. It's just too small a percentage. So why talk about it?

Listening to a poltician (usually NDP but not always) tell you he will "make the rich pay their share" is just a scam to appeal to your emotions and not your brain.

It's enough to halt the service cuts.

That's the point the doctors are making, and that's the only point that matters.

Edited March 24, 2012 by jacee

[Wild Bill]

Really, Bill? Come on, man.

Do the math, CC! It's as plain as 1 + 1 = 2!

Once you've done it you'll see it's like arguing about if the sun rises in the east or the west!

It's literally that plain, CC. Math doesn't lie!

[Wild Bill]

It's enough to halt the service cuts.

That's the only point that matters.

Sez who?

Show me the math!

Anything else is just wishes and dreams.

[Newfoundlander]

Is it better to get revenue through income taxes or sales taxes?

[cybercoma]

Do the math, CC! It's as plain as 1 + 1 = 2!

Once you've done it you'll see it's like arguing about if the sun rises in the east or the west!

It's literally that plain, CC. Math doesn't lie!

Do the math on what? Your overblown exaggeration that people want to make the rich have nothing left?

[CPCFTW]

Depends on what is being sold. If someone comes along and buys the shares of my Qualified Small business then I get a tax free capital gain.

Even if it isn't qualified, I would only pay tax on 50% of the capital gain rather than 100% which is a tremendous tax break.

I still don't see how it is a tax break for the acquiring company (which is what we were discussing). It is just reinvesting profits into growth rather than distributing the earnings to owners. Owners won't accept buying up useless assets/businesses just to avoid paying corporate taxes. Presumably the acquired company will continue to operate as a going concern (meaning its employees will continue to pay taxes) or will offer some other synergistic benefits which will increase taxable income in the future.

Edited March 24, 2012 by CPCFTW

[CPCFTW]

Is it better to get revenue through income taxes or sales taxes?

Anything but corporate taxes.

[TimG]

It's enough to halt the service cuts.

That's the only point that matters.

This where reasonable argument turns to nothing but unadulterated greed.

I can support increases in taxation for the rich but only there are serious attempts to control costs in programs which are unsustainable. The public servant pension plan is one of them. Healthcare is another. If there is no effort to control costs then there is no justification for tax increases on anyone.

[Guest Derek L]

It's a pretty simple concept. The impact of taxation should be the same between a low income earner and a high income earner. There's a base level of finances that one needs to maintain themselves and live a normal life. People need to pay for a home, vehicle, clothing, food, utilities, and insurances as a bare minimum to live a normal life. When someone making $45,000 per year has to give the government $10,000 in income taxes being left with $35,000 has a considerably larger impact on that person's life than someone making $450,000 per year paying $100,000 and being left with $350,000.

Contrary to the greedy types, who believe what's theirs is theirs and everyone else can piss off, no one's suggesting that everyone should be left with the same amount of money. Of course there should be variability in income. Those who work more and get paid more should have more. However, this notion that my money is mine and that's that is completely myopic. A successful person in Canada is only successful because the society they live in allows them to be successful. That society costs money to maintain. Police, fire, health, education, roads, utilities, free-trade agreements, regulators, federal banking, all of these things allow people to be successful; these things allow employers to have a safe business, as well as a healthy and educated workforce. To be quite honest, they owe, at least in part, their success to the State that enforces contracts and maintains the society that allows them to be successful.

One, your ratio of the “rich” person’s tax rate being only 25% is incorrect……Many “rich” folks would kill for that, here in BC it works out to be just over 1/3rd of income………….And second, how do you know it has a lesser impact on “these people’s lives”?

It’s quite easy to talk about other people’s money……….especially at the close of tax season.

[Newfoundlander]

So what happens if we have people unable to spend as much in restaurants or retail stores or buy cheaper cars and less expensive homes?