Future NDP Policies?

Canada_First · August 19, 2015

We are under a period of economic and cultural marxism right now. It disgusts me. I am glad that I'll be dead soon so I won't have to worry about it too much.

Icebound · August 19, 2015

We are arguing the meanings of progressive and regressive, but the key issue is FAIRNESS.

if the whole idea is to get more of your tax revenue from the "rich", and less from the "poor", then let's look at who pays more actual dollars if the only tax was a flat 5% GST.

as somebody already pointed out the "poor" guy will pay 20,000 on his 400k house... Thr "rich" guy will pay 500k on his 10mil home.

That makes the tax "fair" in a practical sense,.. even if the rate is the same for both guys... Because the rich pay more.

The Financial Transaction Tax (FTT) is probably even more fair.... The rich will surely have more and larger transactions than the poor and thus will pay the most tax....

Edited August 19, 2015 by Icebound

Black Dog · August 19, 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.

You should read the full wikipedia articles you quote. Clearly the devil is in the details, but it's a pretty basic economics that unmitigated consumption taxes are regressive.

"In terms of individual income and wealth, a regressive tax imposes a greater burden (relative to resources) on the poor than on the rich: there is an inverse relationship between the tax rate and the taxpayer's ability to pay, as measured by assets, consumption, or income."

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.

I never said anything about opposing the GST or consumption taxes. But I appreciate it when you embarrass yourself by engaging in the kinds of behaviours you deride in others!

socialist · August 19, 2015

You should read the full wikipedia articles you quote. Clearly the devil is in the details, but it's a pretty basic economics that unmitigated consumption taxes are regressive.

"In terms of individual income and wealth, a regressive tax imposes a greater burden (relative to resources) on the poor than on the rich: there is an inverse relationship between the tax rate and the taxpayer's ability to pay, as measured by assets, consumption, or income."

I never said anything about opposing the GST or consumption taxes. But I appreciate it when you embarrass yourself by engaging in the kinds of behaviours you deride in others!

Canada is already having trouble competing against other lower cost countries like Mexico and China etc. Intentionally hamstringing energy industries like Ontario did and what Notley is planning along with an inability to build new pipelines will only make it that much worse. Typical for Canada - concentrate on how to distribute the wealth (i.e. tax those who are productive) rather than how to generate the wealth. Pitiful really.

Edited August 19, 2015 by socialist

cybercoma · August 19, 2015

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.

Reading is tough, eh? Just going to make up a bunch of bullshit about Black Dog's beliefs without any support? He said the GST is not a progressive tax, as Argus was arguing. You're in agreement with Black Dog, but decided to take a shot anyway.

cybercoma · August 19, 2015

The more we go through these progressive-regressive complicated discussions

It's not complicated. It's only complicated by people who don't believe words have meaning and want to make up nonsense like "GST is a progressive tax."

cybercoma · August 19, 2015

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?

What makes you think they were smart enough to be around the right people? Being born into the right family would put you around the right people and has nothing to do with your intelligence or "putting time into yourself" (whatever the hell that means).

cybercoma · August 19, 2015

We are under a period of economic and cultural marxism right now. It disgusts me. I am glad that I'll be dead soon so I won't have to worry about it too much.

Oh, you're one of those people who throws around the term "cultural marxism" because you heard it on some conservative blog, but you have absolutely no idea what it is and neither do they.

cybercoma · August 19, 2015

We are arguing the meanings of progressive and regressive, but the key issue is FAIRNESS.

if the whole idea is to get more of your tax revenue from the "rich", and less from the "poor", then let's look at who pays more actual dollars if the only tax was a flat 5% GST.

as somebody already pointed out the "poor" guy will pay 20,000 on his 400k house... Thr "rich" guy will pay 500k on his 10mil home.

That makes the tax "fair" in a practical sense,.. even if the rate is the same for both guys... Because the rich pay more.

The Financial Transaction Tax (FTT) is probably even more fair.... The rich will surely have more and larger transactions than the poor and thus will pay the most tax....

$1 is worth more the less money you have. So, no. It's not fair.

Canada_First · August 19, 2015

Oh, you're one of those people who throws around the term "cultural marxism" because you heard it on some conservative blog, but you have absolutely no idea what it is and neither do they.

Anything that has any western cultural tradition to it at all is seen as bad and must be done away with, changed or made inclusive. If you don't think this is exactly whats happening in todays world then people are in denial. Cannot even say Merry Christmas without being labeled as some sort of anti PC wacko for Pete's sake.

Catholic schools in Canada need to teach the new sex ed curriculum but guess what Muslim schools do not. Again no, no cultural Marxism right?

Anything Christian or western is looked at as being bad while anything foreign is looked at as being good. It's disgusting.

Canada_First · August 19, 2015

What makes you think they were smart enough to be around the right people? Being born into the right family would put you around the right people and has nothing to do with your intelligence or "putting time into yourself" (whatever the hell that means).

Being born into a rich family usually means that they can go to right schools because they apply themselves more. It would be an embarrassment to their family if they didn't do well in school studies. Or is it your opinion that you must be poor in order to be smart?

It means that someone who takes the right type of degree in the right school will make more money than someone who takes a philosophy degree. Makes sense right? Sheesh , do some people really need to be spoon fed to this degree? No wonder our society is going downhill in the west...lol.

PIK · August 19, 2015

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?

All depends on the job and this university degrees are over blown. IMO it is waste of time and energy, if you can do the job ,you should get it. Not just give it to the guy that went farther in school.

Black Dog · August 19, 2015

Anything that has any western cultural tradition to it at all is seen as bad and must be done away with, changed or made inclusive. If you don't think this is exactly whats happening in todays world then people are in denial. Cannot even say Merry Christmas without being labeled as some sort of anti PC wacko for Pete's sake.

This is false.

Catholic schools in Canada need to teach the new sex ed curriculum but guess what Muslim schools do not. Again no, no cultural Marxism right?

Publicly funded Catholic schools you mean?

Anything Christian or western is looked at as being bad while anything foreign is looked at as being good. It's disgusting.

This gives me an idea for a fun new game: MLW poster or Anders Brievik?

Canada_First · August 19, 2015

All depends on the job and this university degrees are over blown. IMO it is waste of time and energy, if you can do the job ,you should get it. Not just give it to the guy that went farther in school.

So you'd be comfortable having doctors who never went to school? Interesting.

PIK · August 19, 2015

So you'd be comfortable having doctors who never went to school? Interesting.

Like I said it all depends on the job. Sometimes people get over educated and are stupid as a 2x4. I seen to many times where people come out of school and actually have to throw the book away and then learn how to do the job right.

-1=e^ipi · August 19, 2015

a regressive tax imposes a greater burden (relative to resources) on the poor than on the rich

Which a flat tax doesn't classify as. The flat tax gives equal burden, relative to resources.

Black Dog · August 19, 2015

Which a flat tax doesn't classify as. The flat tax gives equal burden, relative to resources.

You missed the rest of the quote there.

"...there is an inverse relationship between the tax rate and the taxpayer's ability to pay, as measured by assets, consumption, or income."

-1=e^ipi · August 19, 2015

$1 is worth more the less money you have. So, no. It's not fair.

Yes, that's the Pigou-Dalton principle.

But is 1% of your income worth less to you the less money you have?

This is the question I tried to ask people in the thread on marginal elasticity of utility, but you refused to answer.

-1=e^ipi · August 19, 2015

"...there is an inverse relationship between the tax rate and the taxpayer's ability to pay, as measured by assets, consumption, or income."

Which doesn't refute what I wrote. Perhaps you lack reading comprehension.

Black Dog · August 19, 2015

Which doesn't refute what I wrote. Perhaps you lack reading comprehension.

I'd suggest you consider what "relative to resources" means before you accuse others of comprehension problems.

Yes, that's the Pigou-Dalton principle.

But is 1% of your income worth less to you the less money you have?

This is the question I tried to ask people in the thread on marginal elasticity of utility, but you refused to answer.

I love that you're still crying about the thread you made that no one cares about.

cybercoma · August 19, 2015

This is false.

Publicly funded Catholic schools you mean?

This gives me an idea for a fun new game: MLW poster or Anders Brievik?

I can't believe you even dignified that garbage with a response.

cybercoma · August 19, 2015

You missed the rest of the quote there.

"...there is an inverse relationship between the tax rate and the taxpayer's ability to pay, as measured by assets, consumption, or income."

Rate to income. It's a tough concept.

-1=e^ipi · August 19, 2015

I'd suggest you consider what "relative to resources" means before you accuse others of comprehension problems.

Relative to resources is in a different sentence. Maybe you are inserting different parts of different sentences in different locations in your head in order to get the sentence you want it to be.

-1=e^ipi · August 19, 2015

Okay, I get that you guys are slow, so maybe I need to spell it out for you:

"there is an inverse relationship between the tax rate and the taxpayer's ability to pay, as measured by assets, consumption, or income."

This is just saying that if A is ability to pay and t is the tax rate, then dA/dt is negative.

It isn't saying that dA/dI is negative, where I is income.

Black Dog · August 19, 2015

Relative to resources is in a different sentence. Maybe you are inserting different parts of different sentences in different locations in your head in order to get the sentence you want it to be.

"In terms of individual income and wealth, a regressive tax imposes a greater burden (relative to resources) on the poor than on the rich: there is an inverse relationship between the tax rate and the taxpayer's ability to pay, as measured by assets, consumption, or income."

A unadjusted flat tax rate (one without rebates or exemptions) is a regressive tax because it doesn't take relative income or spending into account. Pretty simple.