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

[TwoDucks]

So i guess im wealthy, i dont feel wealthy. I feel like a guy who works for a living, as does his wife, both unionized, different jobs, just average working people.

I take it you have a problem with the methodology of the survey cutting the line of wealthy as earning more than $100 000 per year? Well, tough biscuits, I suppose. Statistics Canada has lots of fun numbers, but they all say if you're earning $100k each, you're making way more than average. If you don't feel wealthy despite making more than the majority of Canadians, imagine how someone who actually makes the average income feels, or someone who makes less, for that matter.

Why is the left attacking me? Why am i a bad person for having succeeded? Why is their ideology so broken? I literally started with nothing, believe it or not, i am not the evil rich guy, i pay my taxes, why punish me?

You play the victim so well! Nevertheless, unless you think 58% of Conservative supporters are part of the left, maybe you're diatribe should be saved for a more left vs right issue, as opposed to this one. In any case, having to pay a bit more in taxes is not punishing you, so don't be silly. Do you drive on roads? Do you get healthcare? Do you benefit from law and order? There is a ridiculous number of ways you benefit from government projects and services.

Ill tell you what, if the left will admit that i got what i have by being more intelligent and more hard working than most i will accept an increase. But no, its only luck or outright thievery that makes some people wealthy while others are not, that is what you really believe isnt it?

Yes, that's exactly what I believe. People are only rich because they're crooked or lucky. Which are you?

Its me i guess, instead of saving for my kids education i will give that money to the government and expect the wealthier people to pay for it, thats how its done it seems.

Oh, so you support universal post-secondary education? There's hope for you yet!

[jacee]

So i guess im wealthy, i dont feel wealthy. I feel like a guy who works for a living, as does his wife, both unionized, different jobs, just average working people. Why is the left attacking me? Why am i a bad person for having succeeded? Why is their ideology so broken? I literally started with nothing, believe it or not, i am not the evil rich guy, i pay my taxes, why punish me? Ill tell you what, if the left will admit that i got what i have by being more intelligent and more hard working than most i will accept an increase. But no, its only luck or outright thievery that makes some people wealthy while others are not, that is what you really believe isnt it?

"By being more intelligent" is just the luck of the draw. Be grateful for your good fortune, but never pretend you did anything to 'earn' that.

Nobody's attacking you.

Any tax increase for the more fortunate would be progressive and it's unlikely you'll notice it much if at all. I think you're overreacting.

I prefer (Ontario NDP) Andrea Horvath's suggested cutoff of $500,000 myself, but of course no decisions have yet been made.

Edited April 12, 2012 by jacee

[cybercoma]

For the record, the last publicly available numbers (2009) show that 50% of households made $68000 or less.

[TimG]

So given the questions already provided, do you feel they're biased, and if so, why?

The second question is a meaningless truism because obviously the rich and businesses should pay their 'fair share'. How can anyone disagree with that proposition? The real question is what does a 'fair share' mean? A person who thinks that the rich already pay more than their fair share would still answer yes to that question.

Yet the people who asked the question are trying to spin this to imply a support for increases taxes when it implies nothing of the sort. This is a perfect illustration of poll bias and how polls can be loaded to produce the answers that the group paying for the poll wants.

Another factor which screws up polls are people who answer questions based on how they think the results are going to be spun rather than based on what the questioned asked. For example, if I was as question two I would likely answered 'strongly disagree' when my real answer to the question asked is 'agree'.

Edited April 12, 2012 by TimG

[Newfoundlander]

We need income splitting before this should be considered.

[TimG]

"By being more intelligent" is just the luck of the draw. Be grateful for your good fortune, but never pretend you did anything to 'earn' that.

What crap. Lots of intelligent people go no where because they have no work ethic. People who are well off are usually well off because they work hard and make the right choices (i.e. save for the future rather than 'spend it all now'). IOW, they are rich because they earned it and they deserve it. Edited April 12, 2012 by TimG

[cybercoma]

Yet the people who asked the question are trying to spin this to imply a support for increases taxes when it implies nothing of the sort. This is a perfect illustration of poll bias and how polls can be loaded to produce the answers that the group paying for the poll wants.

Huh?

We need to raise taxes on the rich and big business to ensure they pay their fair share. Strongly agree 42% Somewhat agree 24% Neither agree nor disagree 12% Somewhat agree 9% Strongly disagree 11%

[cybercoma]

What crap. Lots of intelligent people go no where because they have no work ethic. People who are well off are usually well off because they work hard and make the right choices (i.e. save for the future rather than 'spend it all now').

It has to take effort to be this wrong all the time.

Not working hard guarantees you won't be successful.

However, working hard does not at all guarantee that you will be successful. There are all kinds of people that bust their ass and still fail for all kinds of reasons.

[TimG]

Huh?

Oops. The question is still ridiculously biased because it *presumes* that the current state of affairs means the rich and business do not pay their fair share. That presumption biases the question and makes people more likely to agree with it. If they had worded the question:

Some people feel that the rich and businesses do not pay their fair share of taxes. Do you agree?

Then they would have gotten very different results.

[Martin Chriton]

I take it you have a problem with the methodology of the survey cutting the line of wealthy as earning more than $100 000 per year? Well, tough biscuits, I suppose. Statistics Canada has lots of fun numbers, but they all say if you're earning $100k each, you're making way more than average. If you don't feel wealthy despite making more than the majority of Canadians, imagine how someone who actually makes the average income feels, or someone who makes less, for that matter.

It depends where you live, 100k in Toronto probably isn't 'wealthy'. I grew up in Canada but living in one of the most expensive US cities and make around ~250k but I can't even afford a decent house in my area (living in an apartment).

--

These poll results I don't find all too surprising given the generalities in the questions. If they asked specifics, e.g.: would you pay another $5000 in taxes to:

1.) Raise teacher salaries or pensions

2.) Raise public sector salaries (while private sector folks are being laid off)

3.) etc

I imagine the response would've been much more negative. Agree w/ others you could phrase the questions to get the conclusions you were looking for.

[TimG]

However, working hard does not at all guarantee that you will be successful. There are all kinds of people that bust their ass and still fail for all kinds of reasons.

Yep. Some people are just unlucky. But statistically speaking people who work hard and save are wealthier than those how don't.

[cybercoma]

Oops. The question is still ridiculously biased because it *presumes* that the current state of affairs means the rich and business do not pay their fair share. That presumption biases the question and makes people more likely to agree with it. If they had worded the question:

Some people feel that the rich and businesses do not pay their fair share of taxes. Do you agree?

Then they would have gotten very different results.

Some people feel that the rich and businesses do not pay their fair share of taxes. Do you agree?

Yes. I agree that some people feel that the rich and businesses do not pay their fair share of taxes.

Who would disagree with that?

See why your question sucks?

The survey's question takes a clear position and asks the respondent whether they agree or disagree with that position. Taking a position on something is not bias. Bias is an error of logic.

[TimG]

See why your question sucks?

Yep. It is very tough to come up with questions that are truly unbiased.

The survey's question takes a clear position and asks the respondent whether they agree or disagree with that position. Taking a position on something is not bias. Bias is an error of logic.

Wrong. The use of the term 'fair share' biases the question because rejecting the proposition implies that you don't think the rich and businesses should pay their fair share - something that most people do not agree with.

A simple question: 'do you want to raise taxes on the rich and businesses' would be neutral.

Why didn't they ask that?

Answer: because they wanted a poll that would give them the answers they wanted.

Edited April 12, 2012 by TimG

[jacee]

Oops. The question is still ridiculously biased because it *presumes* that the current state of affairs means the rich and business do not pay their fair share. That presumption biases the question and makes people more likely to agree with it. If they had worded the question:

Some people feel that the rich and businesses do not pay their fair share of taxes. Do you agree?

Then they would have gotten very different results.

I doubt that.

I think what this survey shows more than anything is that people generally are bolder about saying that the rich need to take the hit this time, for this recession.

I don't think it matters that the questions may be somewhat biased.

People are saying what they want to say anyway.

What's been captured here is the pushback by the middle class who aren't falling for the 'austerity for you not for us' BS that the G20 business cabal is trying to force feed us ... again.

Doesn't matter what the poll ... that sentiment would come through.

Even from more than half of those who self-identify as Conservatives.

What really matters is that people are losing their fear of 'the man' and are willing to express such opinions at all.

[Shady]

But back to my original point, is the GINI meaningless?

Yes.

Still looking for 'communists' under the bed?

Nope, not communists, marxists. There's a difference. And they're not under any bed, they're out in the open for all to see.

[Shady]

I think what this survey shows more than anything is that people generally are bolder about saying that the rich need to take the hit this time, for this recession.

Yes, the so-called "rich" which is completely subjective. So is "fair share."

[huh]

For the record my family income is over the magic 'you make 100k so you are the enemy' number, though neither of us does individually. Its incredible the vitriol some of you have toward working people.

[cybercoma]

is the GINI meaningless?

Yes.

Ok. So you admit that you're clueless. Thanks.

[cybercoma]

For the record my family income is over the magic 'you make 100k so you are the enemy' number, though neither of us does individually. Its incredible the vitriol some of you have toward working people.

The $100,000 level is personal income, not household income. So you actually fall below the "magic number." And as far as that goes, consider that 50% of Canadian households bring in $68000 or less. That "magic number" is a personal income of $100,000.

[TwoDucks]

For the record my family income is over the magic 'you make 100k so you are the enemy' number, though neither of us does individually. Its incredible the vitriol some of you have toward working people.

The metrics of the survey indicated $100k per person, not family. That's the only time the Association of Leftist Bogeymen requires you mail your paycheque in. Lighten up, comrade.

[Topaz]

The $100,000 level is personal income, not household income. So you actually fall below the "magic number." And as far as that goes, consider that 50% of Canadian households bring in $68000 or less. That "magic number" is a personal income of $100,000.

Funny, if you look at the tax rates now, between 33,000-63,000,is the middle-incomes and I bet more of them will pay income tax while the above limits will get a refund.

[TimG]

I don't think it matters that the questions may be somewhat biased.

People are saying what they want to say anyway.

How do you know that? People's (at least those that don't spend their free time posting on a political discussion forum) opinions are often fluid and asking the same question with different biases will often produce different results. What this means is biased polls are meaningless measures of public sentiment. If you want a real measure of public sentiment you need the same question asked in different ways in several polls.

[jacee]

How do you know that? People's (at least those that don't spend their free time posting on a political discussion forum) opinions are often fluid and asking the same question with different biases will often produce different results. What this means is biased polls are meaningless measures of public sentiment. If you want a real measure of public sentiment you need the same question asked in different ways in several polls.

I just know it.

The tide has turned. Everybody knows the wealthiest have too much money, got it by ripping people off and punnelling their employees while making out like bandits, put poor people out of their homes and then abandon the houses to fall apart, steal money from employee pensions then cry poor and not pay it back, do billions of dollars in industrial environmental damage and then walk away, sell bad investments to people, take taxpayer money in corporate subsidies and call it 'profit' ... and they probably eat kittens too.

But people are onto them now. No more fear of the rich bosses, we have them on the run ... because we all know they'ire cheating on their taxes, hiding money offshore, and getting more tax breaks and better tax rates than those of us who do honest work.

Ask around ... It's the Occupy effect ... and it's working!

Recent work by economists Mike Veall of McMaster University and Emmanuel Saez of the University of California, Berkeley show “an explosion in the earnings of the top 1 per cent” in Canada from the early 1980s to 2007. The top 1 per cent of Canadians pocketed nearly 14 per cent of all income in 2007, compared with 8 per cent in 1982.

...

Governments everywhere are in austerity mode. The middle class is being squeezed by stagnant incomes, pension clawbacks and the steady erosion of government entitlements, such as Old Age Security. Basic fairness suggests al segments of society should share the burden.

Especially those who've been ripping us off.

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/commentary/barrie-mckenna/taxing-the-rich-akin-to-ethnic-cleansing-seriously/article2402977/?service=mobile

See ... there it is again! It's obvious to everyone that the wealthy have to pay more taxes.

There was no plausible path to tax reform that did not recognize that the economy cannot afford to extend these tax cuts for wealthy Americans, Mr. Geithner said.

“We just can’t afford to borrow to do it anymore, and we have to preserve room to these other priorities,” he said.

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-news/so-called-buffett-rule-wont-hurt-us-economy-geithner/article2402973/?service=mobile

Get that? Taxpayers borrow money to pay for tax breaks for the rich.

What's wrong with this picture!

Edited April 16, 2012 by jacee

[cybercoma]

I just know it.

The tide has turned. Everybody knows the wealthiest have too much money, got it by ripping people off and punnelling their employees while making out like bandits, put poor people out of their homes and then abandon the houses to fall apart, steal money from employee pensions then cry poor and not pay it back, do billions of dollars in industrial environmental damage and then walk away, sell bad investments to people, take taxpayer money in corporate subsidies and call it 'profit' ... and they probably eat kittens too.

I know you're intentionally being over-the-top, but this doesn't help any argument. I couldn't be more on your side about this, but I find it as distasteful when someone broad-brushes all of the wealthy this way just as some people broad-brush all of the poor as lazy and not trying hard enough. There are many, many rich people that got there through hard work and good decisions. That doesn't mean that there aren't those that got there out of pure luck however. So don't think I'm completely disregarding what you say. In either case, it doesn't so much matter how they got there.

Everyone that's successful in this country is successful because our nation is run in such a way that it makes it safe, secure, and stable with a workforce that's healthy and educated. The public administration that's necessary for this costs money. Those with a greater ability to pay for the kind of society that has made them successful should pay more. That's why we have a progressive tax system in the first place. The idea is that taxes should place an equal burden on everyone. A 30% income tax rate on someone making $20,000/year is a much greater burden to them than a 30% income tax rate on someone making $200,000/year. So those with greater resources pay a higher fee. Indeed, it is the way we run our society that has allowed them to be successful, so they should be expected to foster that success by paying into the system.

Some people on this forum say, "well how do you know it's not more of a burden on the 'rich' person?" It's obvious. Look at the numbers. There's a certain baseline of funding one needs for food, clothing, and shelter in this country. Those people that say "how do you know" will argue that once a person pays $200,000/year pays for their mortgage, the lease on their Audi, their trip to Hawaii this year, and their kids college tuition, that tax burden would be disproportionate. That's like saying, "sure I'm rich, but not after I spend all my money." That's not at all the same thing as having someone fall below the point where they have to start deciding whether they buy a winter coat or have heat in their apartment through the winter. It's not the same thing as taxing a person so they fall below the point of having to choose between feeding their kids or having their hot-water tank replaced.

Anyway, I'm getting way off my original point because I already know how some people will respond. All I'm saying is that not all rich people got there by dumb luck or inheritance. Some of them certainly did, just like some poor people are poor through no fault of their own. I just don't like the idea that you paint this picture of all rich people having nothing to do with their wealth because that's as untrue as saying all poor people are poor through their own doing.

[ironstone]

I have recently completed my tax return and on page 4 at the bottom there is a box I can check off to donate to the Ontario Opportunities Fund(to help reduce Ontario's debt).So in Canada's most populous province,what exactly is preventing rich people,or anyone for that matter,from sending more money to the government?