NDP Horvath's “tax the rich” proposal.

[Guest Peeves]

"Clearly uneasy with her party’s election odds should a budget standoff trigger one, Ms. Horwath has been careful to stick only to the NDP’s least confrontational ideas. Consider the major item that the NDP has requested of the Liberal government that was not part of the fall campaign: the “tax the rich” proposal that would add two percentage points of tax on the incomes of those earning more than $500,000 annually."

Not a bad idea?

Why not, they can afford it.

But, it's their money they earned it as much as any over paid public service employee..

Oh.

So If I invest my money and time in a business, work hard and hire workers, pay a fair wage, and make

$ 500,000 the NDP think I should pay more tax than the people I hire ?

Yup.

My taxes like yours (if you work or are on pension), go now to many that don't work, won't work, and have never worked in any job that paid any taxes!

Right.

Like single moms that sometimes might have three kids...maybe even from three different fathers...?

Yup.

And the fathers of those kids that maybe in line at drug supervised free clinics, or getting maybe free methadone or pot?

Uh Huh.

Or health centers where special food has been prescribed by a sympathetic doctor for an entire community that requires high fibre or some nonsense like yoga mats and expensive track shoes.

UH huh.

Or so a government can fund a meeting and give Tony Clement's riding perks?

Yup.

Or piss a way billions on E Health, Ornge,long gun registries, closing plants for political votes, reasons. ?

Deedie do!

Or for green energy programs that are costing me money for no proven worth?

Yup.

Or for second hand subs that catch fire?

Or F35's with no price tag?

Or for canceled Helli copters contracts and penalties..?

And Sponsorship scandal, Adscams and stuff?

Most assuredly.

Why should I invest time and money in a business here, work hard, hire employees and then give it back for the NDP or others to use for waste? I think I'll invest in South Carolina.

Many have.

[Michael Hardner]

Why invest in the US, though, where taxes are regarded by many as being very high ? Why not invest in a tax free zone, or emerging nations ?

The answer is: you invest to get the best chance of good returns on investment. That's good sense. So, in Ontario, there is some value to investing in a stable democratic mixed economy with an educated workforce.

All of that makes good sense.

But, your post doesn't focus on that. Instead it focuses on emotional issues with regards to what's fair and not fair, worrying about issues that likely don't cost very much at all, and hyping up stereotypes.

We usually hear complaints that the left is emotional, but this is a business-type post that's more emotive. And, yes, I noticed that you tagged Clement along with your other targets.

The fact is, economics is about what works and nothing more. The morality stuff that you and others talk about is added to the mix to convince people, for political reasons. The truth is, if they could convince Ontarians that a $1 minimum wage was "fair" or that a 90% top tax rate was "fair" they would - "they" in this case being the right or the left.

Again, I like that you went after the Conservatives here. At least you recognize that government is going after its own agenda, whether it is right or left.

As for the matter at hand, we're being told to accept less services to reduce the deficit. If the overall citizenship has to sacrifice, it's "fair" for the top payers to do so too providing that it would work.

[dre]

Why invest in the US, though, where taxes are regarded by many as being very high ? Why not invest in a tax free zone, or emerging nations ?

The answer is: you invest to get the best chance of good returns on investment. That's good sense. So, in Ontario, there is some value to investing in a stable democratic mixed economy with an educated workforce.

All of that makes good sense.

But, your post doesn't focus on that. Instead it focuses on emotional issues with regards to what's fair and not fair, worrying about issues that likely don't cost very much at all, and hyping up stereotypes.

We usually hear complaints that the left is emotional, but this is a business-type post that's more emotive. And, yes, I noticed that you tagged Clement along with your other targets.

The fact is, economics is about what works and nothing more. The morality stuff that you and others talk about is added to the mix to convince people, for political reasons. The truth is, if they could convince Ontarians that a $1 minimum wage was "fair" or that a 90% top tax rate was "fair" they would - "they" in this case being the right or the left.

Again, I like that you went after the Conservatives here. At least you recognize that government is going after its own agenda, whether it is right or left.

As for the matter at hand, we're being told to accept less services to reduce the deficit. If the overall citizenship has to sacrifice, it's "fair" for the top payers to do so too providing that it would work.

Not only that but the wealthy are far bigger users of government services and infrastructure, and the governments CORE CENTRAL MISSION is to protect their private property rights. Every single thing that government does is derived from that core purpose.

[Michael Hardner]

Not only that but the wealthy are far bigger users of government services and infrastructure, and the governments CORE CENTRAL MISSION is to protect their private property rights. Every single thing that government does is derived from that core purpose.

That's your opinion only. There are many instances where the wealthy were forced to relinquish power due to government action.

[cybercoma]

The answer is: you invest to get the best chance of good returns on investment. That's good sense. So, in Ontario, there is some value to investing in a stable democratic mixed economy with an educated workforce.

A stable democratic mixed-economy with an educated workforce also costs money. So if you're going to benefit from that society, you need to pay into it if you have the ability to.

[CPCFTW]

Not only that but the wealthy are far bigger users of government services and infrastructure, and the governments CORE CENTRAL MISSION is to protect their private property rights. Every single thing that government does is derived from that core purpose.

What a load of crap.

Have you never looked at Canada's government spending? Almost all of it all goes to health care, education, OAS, EI, social assistance, and paying off Trudeau's debt.

Infrastructure is a tiny component of spending, and most infrastructure is paid for by property taxes on the wealthy anyway.

Edited April 14, 2012 by CPCFTW

[Guest Peeves]

That's your opinion only. There are many instances where the wealthy were forced to relinquish power due to government action.

Were I of the NDP stripe I would be concerned with her leadership given the rather innocuous position she has taken. See initial post first quoted paragraph. 'That' was my main target.

[Michael Hardner]

A stable democratic mixed-economy with an educated workforce also costs money. So if you're going to benefit from that society, you need to pay into it if you have the ability to.

That is why I referred to it as an investment.

[Michael Hardner]

Were I of the NDP stripe I would be concerned with her leadership given the rather innocuous position she has taken. See initial post first quoted paragraph. 'That' was my main target.

I don't get it. You quoted my response to Dre - was that intentional ?

Why should they be concerned with her leadership ? She has been put into a tough position and seems to be trying to step through it carefully. It seems like she is aware that triggering an election would be bad for her.

[Guest Peeves]

I don't get it. You quoted my response to Dre - was that intentional ? No, an oversite.

Why should they be concerned with her leadership ? She has been put into a tough position and seems to be trying to step through it carefully. It seems like she is aware that triggering an election would be bad for her.

My opinion is that she's too wishy washy. If that's the best she could offer up she's not a leader.Yes indeed,bad for her. Doesn't matter that the present government is bad for just about everyone but Public services/works/civic employees.

She should be pounding the desk on the Liberals policies not worrying about the rich.

[madmax]

PC 37

NDP 30

Lib 27

http://ontarionewswatch.com/onw-news.html?id=308

[TheNewTeddy]

South Carolina GDP Per Capita

$35,717

Ontario GDP Per Capita

$46,303

[madmax]

Forum Poll

PC 37

NDP 30

Lib 27

New from Environics, conducted April 10-13:

PC: 37% (+2 from election)

NDP: 30% (+7)

LIB: 27% (-1)

GRN: 6% (+3)

[TheNewTeddy]

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1163869--ontario-budget-andrea-horwath-s-tax-the-rich-scheme-hugely-popular-poll-suggests?bn=1

Ontarians overwhelmingly favour NDP Leader Andrea Horwath’s proposal to raise taxes on people who earn more than $500,000 a year, a new poll suggests.

“It’s hugely popular. You never see that — that’s huge,” Forum president Lorne Bozinoff said Wednesday.

But an election would apparently result in another minority government — it’s a tight three-way race with the Tories at 34 per cent, the NDP at 31 per cent, the Liberals at 28 per cent and the Greens at 5 per cent.

Hudak’s approval rating languishes at 24 per cent — behind McGuinty at 27 per cent — and well off of Horwath’s poll-leading 46 per cent.

[punked]

That is a ground shift I ever seen one. The NDP found a wedge issue where they are the only ones who stand where half the public stands taxing the rich and they are seeing the political gains from it. That is some good politicking.

[TheNewTeddy]

I hope there is another election over this.

[madmax]

Doak is real nutcase... Ethnic Cleansing...

By James Doak

I recently labelled the Ontario NDP’s choice of taxing the rich as ethnic cleansing

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/04/18/visgoths-versus-bay-street/

[Topaz]

Well, looks like there isn't going to be an election in Ontario after all, The Liberals are agreeing with the NDP over Child Care and Disability and will be talking more this weekend. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/04/20/ontario-liberals-agree-ndp-demands-budget.html

[Savant]

The real problem with her proposal is that it is based on a flawed premise. We don't need to make the rich pay 'higher' taxes, they just need to pay 'more' taxes. Or more precisely, they need to raise the ETR (Effective Tax Rate) for those who make higher incomes. As it stands, there continues to be a gap when you reach those who make high incomes. Once you reach the 'top' their ETR dips markedly. Here's an example chart I dug up from the last decade, although I expect it wouldn't be much different with recent numbers. Note the dashed line that represents the ETR, and how it drops off as you reach the higher income brackets.

Raising the tax rate for high income earners isn't a solution. They have more than enough ways to reduce their taxable income. So instead, imho, the better solution is to reduce tax exemptions for those at the upper end.

Edited April 23, 2012 by Savant

[jacee]

Well, she did it!

A 2% surtax on incomes over $500,000.

Well done Andrea!

[TheNewTeddy]

I'm very satisfied with my vote last election right now.

[Michael Hardner]

Some more numbers - $430 Million per year in revenue from this.

McGuinty's cuts planned to save $6 Billion a year so this goes about about 7% of the way there.

Last month, the McGuinty government unveiled its 2012 budget, and outlined spending cuts of $17.7 billion over three years to help close a $15.3 billion shortfall by 2017-18. As part of the belt tightening, welfare payments would be frozen at their current rate for one year.

[cybercoma]

Of course, when trying to score political points, target the most vulnerable in society. I really hate politics.

[jacee]

Of course, when trying to score political points, target the most vulnerable in society. I really hate politics.

While I appreciated Andrea Horvath's successful efforts to stop the freeze on disability payments, I'm not impressed that she threw welfare recipients under the bus.

A person can live on ODSP.

A person can't live on welfare. It's impossible, and that contributes to petty crime.

It also penalizes our most vulnerable children

[Guest Peeves]

Well, she did it!

A 2% surtax on incomes over $500,000.

Well done Andrea!

Great it goes into the general fund giving Dauntless McGuinty more cash to give out to green energy wasted projects.