Taxing the rich more is a popular idea with the rich too

[jacee]

It’s the risky “third rail” of Canadian politics. From Parliament Hill to Queen’s Park, politicians cringe at any talk of raising taxes, no matter how pressing the need or how good the cause. Most are paralyzed by the spectre of voter backlash. One touch, they seem to think, and you’re fried. backlash. One touch, they seem to think and you’re fried.

Maybe not. A new survey flatly challenges that timid conventional wisdom. It turns out that Canadians are ahead of their political leaders on this issue. Fully 64 per cent, including a majority of Conservatives and wealthy people, say they are willing to shell out a bit more in taxes to protect social programs such as health care, pensions and access to higher education, all of which help reduce income inequality. Less surprisingly, there’s even more support — 83 per cent — for raising taxes on the wealthiest.

These findings by Environics Research for the newly created, progressive Broadbent Institute confirm that the public is genuinely concerned about the growing rich/poor gap. They vindicate the Occupy Canada protesters who caught the nation’s attention last year. And they challenge our policy-makers.

http://www.thestar.com/iphone/opinion/editorials/article/1159364--a-new-canadian-survey-on-the-rich-poor-gap-and-taxes-should-spark-debate

It's a good thing Canadians have a mind of their own.

And it's a good reminder to us all, I think, that we should never give up, never shrug our shoulders and say 'What can ya do!' and give up on our system.

Because it can't work without our input and innovative ideas.

Who'da thunk ...

Thanks to the OCCUPY youth!

Occupy your government.

[TimG]

Fully 64 per cent, including a majority of Conservatives and wealthy people, say they are willing to shell out a bit more in taxes to protect social programs such as health care, pensions and access to higher education, all of which help reduce income inequality.

A push poll designed to produce a response that flies in the face of political reality. Ask the BC Liberals how willing people are to pay more taxes. If you want to claim that people want to raise taxes on other people then that is not a surprise - many people are greedy SOBs who think other people should pay for the services they demand.

[The_Squid]

A push poll designed to produce a response that flies in the face of political reality. Ask the BC Liberals how willing people are to pay more taxes. If you want to claim that people want to raise taxes on other people then that is not a surprise - many people are greedy SOBs who think other people should pay for the services they demand.

Are you saying that Environics isn't a reputable company. I think you're grasping at straws there.

Your comparison to the HST is not accurate. That was mostly about flatly lying to your constituents and bringing in a tax that just months previous you said you wouldn't bring in. Also, the HST would have hurt low income folks disproportionately unlike the poll question which asked about taxing the wealthy, who can afford it.

[TimG]

Are you saying that Environics isn't a reputable company. I think you're grasping at straws there.

Environics is a gun for hire paid by the Broadbent Institute. They would have spun the poll in whatever way the paymaster wanted. The evidence is the poll makes claims that defy political reality.

Your comparison to the HST is not accurate. That was mostly about flatly lying to your constituents and bringing in a tax that just months previous you said you wouldn't bring in.

Nonsense. People were mad because they did not want to pay the tax. Another lie by a politician is not enough to motivate people to challenge the law.

Also, the HST would have hurt low income folks disproportionately unlike the poll question which asked about taxing the wealthy, who can afford it.

A falsehood,the HST credit more than compensates low income people for the HST they paid. This claim is nothing but an excuse designed to hide the real reason: middle class folks did not want to pay the tax. This is why I think the Broadbent study is a nonsense. People do not want their own taxes raised. This is non-negotiable and proven in election after election. But there are a certain number of greedy SOBs who are happy to see other people's taxes raised. Edited April 11, 2012 by TimG

[TheNewTeddy]

I'm not certain you understand how scientific polling works...

[TimG]

I'm not certain you understand how scientific polling works...

I understand it perfectly well. It is quite easy to produce a "scientific" poll that produces the desired results by including various leading questions. If you want people to agree to raising taxes then lead with a bunch questions about problems related to lack of government funding. If you want to people to oppose raising taxes then lead with a bunch of questions about government waste. It is basic psychology.

This is not just speculation on my part. I have been called by "reputable" polling firms and I find that the poll questions are quite carefully chosen to produce a desired answer - sometimes one I agree with - sometimes one I don't.

Edited April 11, 2012 by TimG

[mentalfloss]

Whoever votes for what, we have to do something about the inequality gap.

[Guest Manny]

Sure, I'd love to pay more taxes and give the government more of my money. So they can bail out the rich...

[Michael Hardner]

For a good poll, they should publish the questions as asked. They should also randomize the order of questions asked, and show how they broke down the answers.

For example, what number did they use for 'wealthy Canadians' ?

[waldo]

per the poll, the majority of Canadians are willing to pay more to protect social programs; proportionally:

- 58% of Conservatives

- 71% of New Democrats

- 72% of Liberals

[Newfoundlander]

So if we tax the rich more they'll have less disposable income to spend, is that a good thing?

[capricorn]

For example, what number did they use for 'wealthy Canadians' ?

Exactly. In any case, any party that wants to hike taxes on an identifiable group can put that in their policy platform and Canadians can then have their say in an election.

[cybercoma]

A push poll designed to produce a response that flies in the face of political reality. Ask the BC Liberals how willing people are to pay more taxes. If you want to claim that people want to raise taxes on other people then that is not a surprise - many people are greedy SOBs who think other people should pay for the services they demand.

Other people pay for every last government service that there is from food inspection to military protection. Get a clue.

[cybercoma]

So if we tax the rich more they'll have less disposable income to spend, is that a good thing?

Yes. Since their "disposable" income is not spent. It's hoarded in bank accounts.

[cybercoma]

Exactly. In any case, any party that wants to hike taxes on an identifiable group can put that in their policy platform and Canadians can then have their say in an election.

On an "identifiable group". What, you think there's going to be a Charter challenge on that one? Don't be ridiculous. We have a progressive tax system as it is. Does every new income bracket unfairly raise the taxes on a new "identifiable group"?

[capricorn]

Does every new income bracket unfairly raise the taxes on a new "identifiable group"?

Here's an example of what I mean by identifiable group. In Ontario, some persons do not pay the health care premium. In this example, the identifiable group is low income Ontarians with less than $20,000 in income.

[cybercoma]

Here's an example of what I mean by identifiable group. In Ontario, some persons do not pay the health care premium. In this example, the identifiable group is low income Ontarians with less than $20,000 in income.

That's right because we don't want people to have to choose between putting food on the table or paying rent and paying their taxes. They're still hit with GST/HST, fuel excise taxes, "sin" taxes, etc.

Edited April 11, 2012 by cybercoma

[Shady]

Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax the guy behind the tree.

[madmax]

Here's an example of what I mean by identifiable group. In Ontario, some persons do not pay the health care premium. In this example, the identifiable group is low income Ontarians with less than $20,000 in income.

This is the typical tax the middle class... just like the HST is more geared to sticking it to middle class.. be it upper or lower...

This is exactly the kind of taxation that would be replaced if the taxation system was proportional.

A person making 500,000 pays 900 in health tax.. same as a person making 60,000.

Its these tax shifts which have been going at the middleclass for about 20 years while tax breaks.. have been giving to those with greater wealth. Same with the shift to GST, HST.. and in LiberaCon BC.. the Carbon tax... all focused on getting the nickles and dimes from the middleclass while those with obsene money do just fine..

[Spiderfish]

For example, what number did they use for 'wealthy Canadians' ?

I agree, this is the problem I see with increasing taxes overall for the 'wealthy'. The definition of wealthy is not a constant, once the idea of tax increase for higher income earners takes hold, it is nothing for the government of the day to simply slide the marker down the scale.

[Newfoundlander]

Yes. Since their "disposable" income is not spent. It's hoarded in bank accounts.

Do you have proof of that?

I'm not totally against taxing the "rich", whatever that means, but I don't know what the actual benefits are. If high income earners are taxed more my initial thought is they won't be spending as much money. Their houses won't be as expensive, so their communities are losing out on property taxes, they won't eat out as often or buy clothing or what not, which is not great for people working in the service industry. The government will also being collecting less in sales taxes. Of course many "rich" people may be spending money outside Canada, which is not great for us.

So I'm not totally opposed to the idea but I'm not sure what exactly the benefits are.

Edited April 11, 2012 by Newfoundlander

[Wilber]

Nonsense. People were mad because they did not want to pay the tax.

I signed the petition because I was incensed about the way they lied when they brought it in. I ended up voting to keep it because I thought it was the lessor of two evils.

Another lie by a politician is not enough to motivate people to challenge the law.

Nonsense. You reward people for lying to you?

Edited April 11, 2012 by Wilber

[madmax]

Do you have proof of that?

So I'm not totally opposed to the idea but I'm not sure what exactly the benefits are.

Banks make Billions in Quarterly Profits. They are a protected Industry. There is nothing wrong with protecting out banks. It does give them Oligopoly power and create excessive markup without an overall net benefit. Infact..if given to their vices... the Marketers of the Banking Industry would overthrow the Conservative Banking side and "invest" our monies as successfully as Madof..or CIBCs investment in Enron and coverup....

These very same people earn far in excess of 500,000 and its often shown that a person making $300,000 can pay less in taxes % wise..then a person making $40 to $60 thousand.

Add in that the incomes of the middleclass are going down... the money has to come from somewhere ...

Its either going to be flat rate HST taxes & User Fees or those who are in a comfortable position can pay their fair share.

Regardless.. some people who make good money are willing to pay more in taxes if they can see the benefits of doing so...

The rest of us see the waste... but people need many of the services ...

I find it strange that our Country is protected by our military... it is an expensive undertaking.... and yet those who benefit the most from being in Canada..like those in Financial and Banking Markets.. even Insurance... don't want to foot the bill.

So the irony is... from many Conservative supporters..and previous to this Liberal Supporters is the concept...

We need XYZ program (like the F35s) it cost $25Billion

And then those same supporters..knowing full well the expense, the needs and the cost overruns.. will say they want to pay less taxes...

Revenue in

Revenue Out

Someone has to pay.

What people really want is... Good Government..

[Wilber]

More details please. Some past governments have had some pretty peculiar ideas about what "wealthy" means.

[jacee]

Environics is a gun for hire paid by the Broadbent Institute. They would have spun the poll in whatever way the paymaster wanted. The evidence is the poll makes claims that defy political reality.

So you're saying that the Conservatives too can hire a polling company to get the answers they want?

You're saying all polling/research companies are 'guns for hire'?

Or just the ones who get results you don't like?

Maybe you're just falling behind the times, TimG.

Maybe you just don't get that this time the recession is being laid at the doorstep of those really responsible - the wealthy powerbrokers with governments in their pockets.

Maybe you just don't get that those who are usually forced to pay the price for the greed and psychopathy of predatory wealth - the poor, the workers, the middle clas, the youth/students, the sick, the seniorss ... they're putting their foot down, taking it to the streets, to their MP's, to the media ... because THIS TIME THE WEALTHY PREDATORS ARE GOING TO PAY THE PRICE FOR THEIR OWN GREED AND MISMANAGEMENT.

This time, TimG, we're not afraid of them.

This time THE G20 CAN STICK THEIR 'AUSTERITY-FOR-EVERYONE-BUT-US'

AGENDA DOWN THEIR OWN THROATS!

Suck it up.

It's a new day.

Get with the program.

Most Canadians get it, including conservative and wealthy ones.

Those who don't yet get it are a minority, shrinking daily, the last whining vestige of the last century, the ones who pushed inequality to the breaking point where the next step is widespread civil unrest.

We are there.

And the wealthy predators should at least respect that the OCCUPY movement that galvanizes the entire population does it peacefully.

That's how they're winning the hearts and minds of Canadians, as the poll shows.

Edited April 11, 2012 by jacee