Harper's tax credits..good or bad?

[WIP]

Cybercoma, is your point that limitless economic growth is environmentally unsustainable and so we should focus more on making sure that wealth is divided more equally such that the poor are still doing OK instead of trying to make everyone richer

That would be my point! The studies on income and wealth inequality all show that widening the gaps increases the sense of materialism and consumption levels of all groups in the income hierarchy, while making them less satisfied and continually striving for more. All of which is bad for any environment issues.

[WIP]

That's tangential to the issue at hand. I was commenting solely on the incorrectness of WIP's statement.

He claimed the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, and tried to support it with that chart. The chart in fact shows everyone getting richer, though at different rates. The poor may not be getting richer as fast as the rich are, but they are getting richer nonetheless.

Inflation and cost of living estimates are dubious over this length of time. The inflation numbers don't even include cost of food and gasoline because of the excuse that these numbers fluctuate too much....but it's not like people in the lower margins haven't noticed that they have less money left over to buy those $10.00 walmart shirts after they've paid for food and rent!

I've mentioned before that when I left school and worked minimum wage jobs, I could afford an apartment and groceries and spending money. The only thing that was out of reach was having a car, and that was largely because of the high cost of car insurance for my age group.

A lot of bullshit games can be played with numbers, but what can't be ignored is the basic theme from Thomas Picketty's book last year, that wealth increases faster for those who already have money and the system today is more and more geared to favour earning money through having money, than those earning money through their work....no matter what field or profession they are in! The game is rigged, and it's rigged by the assholes with the money to buy politicians and direct them to write the tax laws so they can hide their money from tax collectors by means unavailable to a wage earner with a social insurance number.

[-1=e^ipi]

The inflation numbers don't even include cost of food and gasoline because of the excuse that these numbers fluctuate too much.

... Yeah they do.

Look, just take either the CPI or the GDP deflator (preferably the latter) to take inflation into account. It isn't that hard.

[eyeball]

And it is so commonly accepted that few even bother to dig deeper for CanCon stats.

Oh well, it would still be US information once it was disseminated through US internet servers.

Any mention of sources like the Fraser Institute automatically moves attention to "right wing" bias and motives, regardless of the underlying data or analysis.

No. I'm pretty sure that regardless of the underlying data or analysis, the more relevant fact to you is that US servers disseminated the information.

[socialist]

... Yeah they do.

Look, just take either the CPI or the GDP deflator (preferably the latter) to take inflation into account. It isn't that hard.

The problem is that we cannot rely on the MSM to tell us anything worthwhile, or to even be fair during the campaign, as the MSM is heavily invested in the Liberals and NDP. It's ice that there are level headed assessments to be found.

Here is an interesting take.

http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2015/08/king-of-deficits.html

[cybercoma]

Today, on the news, I heard that in Canada, Canadians are paying 42% of their pay is in taxes, this includes all 3 levels of government and ALL taxes paid. So with anyone under 20,000. not paying income taxes and anyone over 100-150,000. doing better, the rest of us,are not doing very well and that's why some say, forget the credits and reduced the income tax rate and it would help if the feds gave more money back to the provinces, so WE wouldn't have a chain-reaction down the 3 levels of government were the taxpayer always take the fall.

The Fraser Institute's methodology is garbage. They include all taxes collected. That means the figure also includes corporate taxes and excises that have nothing to do with what households pay.

[bush_cheney2004]

Oh well, it would still be US information once it was disseminated through US internet servers.

No. I'm pretty sure that regardless of the underlying data or analysis, the more relevant fact to you is that US servers disseminated the information.

Actually the opposite....the very same people who rail against America and the U.S. government are more than happy to use American data and analysis (e.g. CBO) for a Canadian topic / argument. I'm sure somebody in BC could rub two nickels together and get domestic hosting services going.

Edited August 31, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[Icebound]

But once again people are still stupid enough to fork over the dough with huge mortgages. Let the houses sit and the demand dry up. Why is it up to leadership? Are people too stupid to manage money?

People have to live somewhere...so they are buying what is available...even when it is too expensive for them

If they should let the houses sit, as you suggest, then I think you have just made my point...they can't afford one of those essentials.

...

[blueblood]

People have to live somewhere...so they are buying what is available...even when it is too expensive for them

If they should let the houses sit, as you suggest, then I think you have just made my point...they can't afford one of those essentials.

...

But is it necessary for houses to be priced like that? If housing is too stupidly priced then they can suck it up and rent

[Icebound]

But is it necessary for houses to be priced like that? If housing is too stupidly priced then they can suck it up and rent

People already are... Vacancy rates in big cities are under 2% and have been falling.

[kraychik]

The Fraser Institute's methodology is garbage. They include all taxes collected. That means the figure also includes corporate taxes and excises that have nothing to do with what households pay.

You should view the economy as a deeply integrated ecosystem complete with feedback loops.

The material quality/wealth of a person's life is impacted by all taxes paid across the board, not just direct out-of-pocket taxes paid via income, property, service, duties, or excise/sin taxes.

[cybercoma]

When you say the average family pays $X in taxes and X includes money that wasn't paid by any family anywhere, then you're at best being misleading but really just flat out lying about the household tax burden.

Edited September 1, 2015 by cybercoma

[PIK]

Actually the opposite....the very same people who rail against America and the U.S. government are more than happy to use American data and analysis (e.g. CBO) for a Canadian topic / argument. I'm sure somebody in BC could rub two nickels together and get domestic hosting services going.

You would think in ONT they could find someone to hold our info on hunters/fisherman. All our info goes to tennessee.

[kraychik]

When you say the average family pays $X in taxes and X includes money that wasn't paid by any family anywhere, then you're at best being misleading but really just flat out lying about the household tax burden.

I just realized what an utter waste of time it is to ever engage you. I won't make that mistake, again.

[Civis Romanus sum]

And maybe the country will go through what it did when Martin was finance minister and later Prime Minister, and we can get off this endless string of deficits and huge run ups in our overall debt.

Are you advocating the government drastically cut provincial transfer payments?

[Civis Romanus sum]

The flat tax BS started in the US with trust fund baby - Steve Forbes. Back in the 80's it was more acceptable, because we didn't realize that the rich would keep getting richer and the poor getting poorer for the next 30 years!

So under the current system the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer? And so you want to keep the current system?

Flat tax would be fine and dandy if we were all earning about the same income....but we're not!

Nor should we be.

And someone who's earning minimum wage or living close to the poverty line is not going to have any discretionary income after they've paid for rent, food and a few necessities,

Assuming we make the flat tax relatively progressive, in line with existing tax rates, such a person would not be paying any tax.

while the superrich are parking their money and trying to get better returns on investment because you can only buy so many big houses and fancy cars....and maybe a yacht...but the rest goes back in and earning bigger returns and increasing the wealth gap.

So what? If it's being invested in the economy that's a good thing.

[Civis Romanus sum]

The chart clearly shows that people in ALL quintiles got richer. Yes, the richer got richer by more, but the poor still also got richer. This is in direct contradiction to your claim of the "rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer".

It's also an American chart, and irrelevant to Canada.

[Civis Romanus sum]

Not to mention the chart is US data anyway in a thread about "Harper's tax credits". All the data I've ever seen shows that the rate of divergence in incomes between upper and lower income earners in Canada is significantly slower than it is in the US.

From what I've read the gap has actually been closing, not widening.

This is from the Conference Board if Canada, showing that income inequality has not been growing in Canada since the 1990s.

Income inequality in Canada has increased over the past 20 years. Canada reduced inequality in the 1980s, with the Gini coefficient reaching a low of 0.281 in 1989. Income inequality rose in the 1990s, but has remained around 0.32 in the 2000s.

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/society/income-inequality.aspx

This is from Andrew Coyne

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be concerned about them. But it’s simply not true that inequality is growing worse, or that incomes have stagnated. It was true in the past; it is not now. Yet in the 1990s they were a non-issue, and today we can talk of nothing but.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/the-myth-of-income-inequality

Edited September 1, 2015 by Civis Romanus sum

[On Guard for Thee]

Are you advocating the government drastically cut provincial transfer payments?

No need of that with interest rates where they are. Maybe a little downsizing of the monumental government Harper has built up would be a good place to start.

[Civis Romanus sum]

No need of that with interest rates where they are. Maybe a little downsizing of the monumental government Harper has built up would be a good place to start.

So what programs would you cut?

[On Guard for Thee]

So what programs would you cut?

How about 750 million for government advertising it's own failing policies for a start?

[cybercoma]

I just realized what an utter waste of time it is to ever engage you. I won't make that mistake, again.

Good because apparently you've got nothing to offer.

[Civis Romanus sum]

How about 750 million for government advertising it's own failing policies for a start?

I agree some of that is wasted. I doubt all of it is. Let's say you cut it by a third, or even half. That's not much on the scale of the federal budget. Martin cut many billions from transfers to the provinces, as well as cutting thousands of civil service positions, and many federal programs. You said you wanted Canada to go through what it did under Paul Martin. Well, that is what it went through.

Oh yes, and we also need to raise the GST back up to 7% and increase income taxes.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Civis Romanus sum

[On Guard for Thee]

I agree some of that is wasted. I doubt all of it is. Let's say you cut it by a third, or even half. That's not much on the scale of the federal budget. Martin cut many billions from transfers to the provinces, as well as cutting thousands of civil service positions, and many federal programs. You said you wanted Canada to go through what it did under Paul Martin. Well, that is what it went through.

Oh yes, and we also need to raise the GST back up to 7% and increase income taxes.

Martin had to cut because he needed to get the debt under control due to the much higher interest rate costs he had to deal with at the time. Not the case today. Harper prattled on about downsizing government and then went on to expand it to the largest ever so there is room to trim there. And then a lot of infrastructure in this country has been ignored and spending on those kinds of projects makes a lot more sense than cutting the GST which is what led in large part to the endless deficits Harper has delivered.

[Civis Romanus sum]

Martin had to cut because he needed to get the debt under control due to the much higher interest rate costs he had to deal with at the time.

I'm confused about what interest rates have to do with a balanced budget. Martin cut because he had a big deficit, and he got back into balance through doing so. You seem to applaud this, even while applauding Trudeau's proposal to increase the deficit. There's a strange contradiction in that.