Future NDP Policies?

Black Dog · August 18, 2015

There's a very big difference between the almost 1200 "delegates" and the NDP caucus (elected MPs). Since the majority of elected MPs are in Quebec - the most socialistic of our provinces by far, you can bet the farm that the vast majority have strong socialist leanings. So they do have a strong voice in the party - unless you're ready to accuse Thomas Mulcair of being worse than Harper - and muzzling all of them!

This might be true, but it's not relevant here. The thread is specifically about the NDP Socialist Caucus.

Keepitsimple · August 18, 2015

This might be true, but it's not relevant here. The thread is specifically about the NDP Socialist Caucus.

No it's not. It's about Federal NDP policies. It's the "NDP Socialist Caucus" that's really not relevant - it's not a federal entity (see the website) - it's more of a "cause".

Black Dog · August 18, 2015

No it's not. It's about Federal NDP policies. It's the "NDP Socialist Caucus" that's really not relevant - it's not a federal entity (see the website) - it's more of a "cause".

I'd suggest you re-read the OP, which is entirely about whether these NDP Socialist Caucus proposals would make their way into the party platform (spoiler: they won't).

Argus · August 18, 2015

Progressive taxes are called thus because the rate increases (or "progresses") as income increases. With a sales tax, people pay the same tax for the same thing regardless of their income, so someone with a low income will be paying more tax relative to income than a higher income individual buying the same thing, therefore, it is a regressive tax. Obviously.

Except VAT or sales taxes normally exempt certain things like food, rent and medicine and medical supplies, and child care which consumes most of the spending of poor people. Plus they get a rebate.

If you're poor you take the bus and pay no taxes. If you're middle class you buy a Ford and pay HST on it. If you're rich you buy a Mercedes or Porsche and pay way more HST on it. That's progressive.

Edited August 18, 2015 by Argus

Argus · August 18, 2015

Progressive Taxation, ie. not the GST. I'm in favour.

The GST IS progressive. :rolleyes:

Black Dog · August 18, 2015

Except VAT or sales taxes normally exempt certain things like food, rent and medicine and medical supplies, and child care which consumes most of the spending of poor people. Plus they get a rebate.

And those mitigation measures are put in place precisely because such taxes are inherently regressive.

The GST IS progressive.

No it's not. Everyone pays the same rate for the same goods regardless of income. It's a flat tax.

Argus · August 18, 2015

And those mitigation measures are put in place precisely because such taxes are inherently regressive.

No it's not. Everyone pays the same rate for the same goods regardless of income. It's a flat tax.

If you're poor, how much do you pay? Basically nothing, right?

Sorry, but that's as progressive as it gets.

Yes, a middle class person would pay the same rate if he bought a Porsche, but he isn't going to buy a Porsche. He isn't going to have the kind of disposable income of a rich person. The rich person will wind up paying a much higher actual amount, as well as a higher percentage of income.

Black Dog · August 18, 2015

If you're poor, how much do you pay? Basically nothing, right?

Sorry, but that's as progressive as it gets.

Again: this due to limitations placed on the tax to counteract its regressive nature.

Yes, a middle class person would pay the same rate if he bought a Porsche, but he isn't going to buy a Porsche. He isn't going to have the kind of disposable income of a rich person. The rich person will wind up paying a much higher actual amount, as well as a higher percentage of income.

The rich paying more in this scenario is not a product or function of the tax itself.

Argus · August 18, 2015

Again: this due to limitations placed on the tax to counteract its regressive nature.

These 'limitations' are always an integral part of such taxes.

The rich paying more in this scenario is not a product or function of the tax itself.

It's a function of reality. You pay a hell of a lot more on a ten million dollar home than on a $400k home. And you pay a hell of a lot more for a garage full of Porsches BMWs and Ferarris than for an old Ford.

Black Dog · August 18, 2015

These 'limitations' are always an integral part of such taxes.

Yes: an artificial set of constraints placed on a tax that would otherwise disproportionate impact low income people. If only they had a word for such a tax!

Edited August 18, 2015 by Black Dog

Argus · August 18, 2015

Yes: an artificial set of constraints placed on a tax that would otherwise disproportionate impact low income people. If only they had a word for such a tax!

This is an inane conversation. It's like saying income taxes would disproportionately impact low income people if they weren't designed to not do so. Like, duh!

Black Dog · August 18, 2015

This is an inane conversation. It's like saying income taxes would disproportionately impact low income people if they weren't designed to not do so. Like, duh!

This inane conversation could have been avoided if you had not chosen to dick around with basic economic terminology for no particular reason. Your argument is "sales taxes aren't regressive because of all of these things that have nothing to do with the actual tax!" It's silly.

Edited August 18, 2015 by Black Dog

Keepitsimple · August 18, 2015

I'd suggest you re-read the OP, which is entirely about whether these NDP Socialist Caucus proposals would make their way into the party platform (spoiler: they won't).

Sorry - you're right.....I was wrong.

msj · August 18, 2015

How much money have you spent since the cut. And the 2% you saved adds up big time. Unless if you live in ONT then they take whatever savings we got from the feds.

I would prefer it to be "how much income tax have you saved" from an income tax cut rather than how much GST I have saved.

To a certain extent I get to choose when I pay GST.

For income taxes not so much (as I rarely turn down work, and never turn it down because "I will pay tax in a higher tax bracket" which is a sure sign of a person not having a clue what tax bracket they are in).

The point being - Harper has an economists' background so he knows this.

But his lust for power overrides his own training.

cybercoma · August 18, 2015

The GST IS progressive.

The GST is a flat tax.

cybercoma · August 18, 2015

If you're poor, how much do you pay?

5% just like everyone else pays.

cybercoma · August 18, 2015

It's a function of reality. You pay a hell of a lot more on a ten million dollar home than on a $400k home. And you pay a hell of a lot more for a garage full of Porsches BMWs and Ferarris than for an old Ford.

Uh, no you don't. You pay the exact same rate.

Argus · August 18, 2015

This inane conversation could have been avoided if you had not chosen to dick around with basic economic terminology for no particular reason. Your argument is "sales taxes aren't regressive because of all of these things that have nothing to do with the actual tax!" It's silly.

Can you give me an example of a progressive tax? Leaving out all the things added to the tax to make it progressive?

-1=e^ipi · August 18, 2015

Let's see, definition of progressive tax:

A progressive tax is a tax in which the tax rate increases as the taxable amount increases.

Definition of regressive tax:

A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases.

A consumption tax classifies as progressive if essentials are not subject to the tax.

And even if the consumption tax did not have exceptions, it would not classify as regressive. Rather it would classify as neutral (neither progressive nor regressive).

A flat income tax classifies as progressive when combined with a guaranteed income and neutral when there is no guaranteed income. It is not regressive.

But to 'progressives' like Black Dog, the terms 'progressive tax' and 'regressive tax' don't have clear meanings. Rather, 'progressive tax' is any tax Black Dog agrees with and 'regressive tax' is any tax Black Dog disagrees with. The usage of the term 'progressive' in this context is to play an Orwellian word association game where 'progress' is associated with the tax that Black Dog agrees with in order to get the listener to support that tax system without Black Dog having to justify the tax system on its merits.

Icebound · August 18, 2015

The more we go through these progressive-regressive complicated discussions, the more I am convinced that the Financial Transaction Tax... replacing most (or all) others... Is the way to go.

Of corse a bunch of accountants and CRA employees would become redundant......

msj · August 18, 2015

A regressive tax is a tax that is applied uniformly.

That is, whether you make $10,000 or $1,000,000 you will pay the same 5% on whatever item you are buying (that is subject to GST).

A progressive tax is a tax that goes progressively higher as income goes up.

For example, to use the 2015 federal tax rates:

The first $44,701 is taxed at 15%.

Then the next $44,703 is taxed at 22%.

Then the next $49,185 is taxed at 26%.

And then anything over $138,586 is taxed at 29%.

That is progressive - as one's ability to pay tax goes up (rising income) then one's tax burden goes up because presumably the person making $100,000 has the means to pay a higher tax bill as compared to the person only making $20,000.

Karl Mark called this progressive or graduated for those interested in the Communist Manifesto: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

Marx probably did not have the imagination to create a sales tax with progressive properties though:

In BC there is a luxury surtax so the rate of tax is the 7% plus 1% (so 8%) for vehicles that cost $55,000 to $55,999.99; then 9% for $56,000 to $56,999.99 and finally 10% for cars that cost $57,000 and over.

So, on passenger vehicles, one can say that the BC PST is progressive (ish).

Edited August 18, 2015 by msj

Machjo · August 18, 2015

To clarify, when you pay uniformly, that is a proportional tax. A regressive tax is when the percentage decreases as you go up in income, progressive when it increases. If it's always the same percentage, that is proportional.

-1=e^ipi · August 19, 2015

A regressive tax is a tax that is applied uniformly.

Nope. A regressive tax is one where the tax rate is a decreasing function of income.

msj · August 19, 2015

I agree.

It also is applied uniformly though: I pay 5% when buying a smartphone just like you would pay when you bought something.

Canada_First · August 19, 2015

Because we all know those who earn the most are the hardest workers.

The people who earn the most money have put a lot of time into themselves and have been smart enough to be around the right people and work under the right people as they were coming up. Do you think a labourer should make the same wage as a Harvard graduate?