Scotty Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 You keep filleting Trudeau without any evidence what soever - pot, meet kettle. What have I said about Trudeau that isn't based on evidence to date? I realize you're a fan boy of his now, but most of us are more cynical based on life experience. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Smallc Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 What have I said about Trudeau that isn't based on evidence to date? I realize you're a fan boy of his now, but most of us are more cynical based on life experience. I'm not a fan boy of his - I'm not willing to criticize him on broken promises and appointing party bagmen until he's done so. He's not even the prime minister yet. Quote
Smallc Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 Once Trudeau puts his tax increase in place the top tax rate in New Brunswick is going to be almost 60%. I bet a lot of people there are going to be working less to make sure they don't cross that line. This is complete ignorance on your part. Crossing that line has no bearing on the taxes paid below that line. Anyone making up to $220K will pay less personal income tax. Quote
Scotty Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 I wouldn't worry too much about the minions below the "Assistant Deputy Minister" level. They were eager to prove themselves as good auditors, they have to keep there performance evaluation up. But direction means everything.. and if the direction changes to "audit broadly and fairly", they will do THAT job eagerly as well. But the top 3 or 4 or half-dozen in each department.... yeah, time to retire. I like how you've already pronounced them collectively guilty, and called up the firing squad without a single solitary shred of evidence any one of them did anything wrong. Do you have gulags in mind for those who think different thoughts than you? Maybe re-education camps? Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 I'm curious about some other Tory policies, in particular the fixed election dates. I think this long election, while it didn't do what the Tories hoped, demonstrated just how worthless such a law is. The Constitution sets a Parliament's maximum term at five years, and Confederation got along quite nicely with that for the overwhelming majority of its history. Heck, even for Harper, this was the first time this populist piece of nothingness was even used, and as I say, he still tried to find a way to game it. Harper put this in place because it was unfair for the government to be able to call an election whenever the time seemed best for its own re-election chances. It was, in retrospect, a dumb idea, because it meant he couldn't call an election in early spring, when his chances would have been far better. Had he called it before the oil slowdown began to bite the economy and before the Duffy trial he would have probably done a lot better. Now that your party is in power you're calling for the old rule to be put back in place so the Liberals can call an election whenever it's more advantageous to them? Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 There is no reason to redistribute wealth just for the sake of redistributing it. Not to mention if you get too enthusiastic about it a lot of those who have it are going to leave. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
cybercoma Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 I'm a bit disappointed my pot and hookers haven't shown up yet. Quote
Smeelious Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 Canadian taxes are already almost the highest in the world, and this will just push them higher. If I'm reading this chart right, Canada's taxes are far higher than most European countries already, and most of those countries have better social services than we do. They don't pay their public servants the enormously high salaries we pay ours, though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates Better social services? Lower Public Servant Salaries? From whence? I took one look at the tax entry on that list for Canada and shook my head. (Understanding taxes is bad enough without the wall of text in a box) I think what you are seeing here is that the Canadian entry is far better researched than the others. Tax rates are also notoriously hard to compare since they vary by too many factors. Generally I think I've seen that the average effective tax rate for Canadians is around 10%. (I'm still looking for the cite on that one...) Because if you can get something for nothing a lot of people will go for it even if they don't need it. A lot of middle class people shop at the Salvation Army even though they don't need to because they get such bargains. I'm willing to bet if you follow the average food bank person home you'll find they have a couple of TVs, cell phones, cable, internet, video games, computer, maybe even a car. The things you've listed here are essentially mandatory. If I'm looking for a job, I need all the things you've listed here and more, if otherwise I can't afford food because I've had to buy the other things I need to go out and make money, so be it. Quote
Smallc Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 Canadian taxes are already almost the highest in the world, We are below the OECD average. Trudeau has not proposed a net increase in taxes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP Quote
Scotty Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 (edited) Better social services? Lower Public Servant Salaries? From whence? My impression is public service salaries at all levels in Canada, including uniformed members like police, fire, and even the military, are higher than anywhere else in the world. I haven't seen a detailed study, but whenever I've compared say teachers salaries here with teachers salaries in the US or Europe, or firefighter or police salaries, ours turn out to be way higher. I took one look at the tax entry on that list for Canada and shook my head. (Understanding taxes is bad enough without the wall of text in a box) I think what you are seeing here is that the Canadian entry is far better researched than the others. It might be the Canadian entry is more complicated because of the variance among provinces, which also have very high tax rates. Many other entities don't have provinces with taxes. Generally I think I've seen that the average effective tax rate for Canadians is around 10%. (I'm still looking for the cite on that one...) Those at the lower spectrum pay few or no income taxes, but that just means taxes are heavily toploaded on those in the middle and upper income levels. The things you've listed here are essentially mandatory. If I'm looking for a job, I need all the things you've listed here and more, if otherwise I can't afford food because I've had to buy the other things I need to go out and make money, so be it. It's not mandatory to have a car, not in a city with transit. It's not necessary to have video games or even computers, let alone high speed internet and full cable packages. Cell phones are also unnecessary. Edited October 21, 2015 by Scotty Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 We are below the OECD average. Trudeau has not proposed a net increase in taxes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP Taxes as a percentage of GDP is one way of measuring things, but it seems more distant to ordinary people than actual tax rates. And I remain unconvinced Trudeau is going to be able to increase program spending without increasing taxes to cover them, unless he plans on endless deficits. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Smallc Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 Taxes as a percentage of GDP is one way of measuring things, but it seems more distant to ordinary people than actual tax rates. It's also the only thing that really matters when measuring what we actually pay. Quote
Scotty Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 It's also the only thing that really matters when measuring what we actually pay. The only thing which really matters to me when I measure what I pay is my own tax rate. It is not a consolation that some guy a few blocks away is paying little or nothing. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
ToadBrother Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 Harper put this in place because it was unfair for the government to be able to call an election whenever the time seemed best for its own re-election chances. It was, in retrospect, a dumb idea, because it meant he couldn't call an election in early spring, when his chances would have been far better. Had he called it before the oil slowdown began to bite the economy and before the Duffy trial he would have probably done a lot better. Now that your party is in power you're calling for the old rule to be put back in place so the Liberals can call an election whenever it's more advantageous to them? Since the legislation does not prevent an early election, it's pretty much useless. The Constitution sets the maximum life of a Parliament at five years, so fixed date election laws in our country are little more than populist pap. I say get rid of them. Quote
Smallc Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 The only thing which really matters to me when I measure what I pay is my own tax rate. Well, if you make less than $200K per year and have kids, you end up with more money. If you make less than $220K per year and don't have kids...still more money. Quote
poochy Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 (edited) This is complete ignorance on your part. Crossing that line has no bearing on the taxes paid below that line. Anyone making up to $220K will pay less personal income tax. How? The only tax break i have seen stops at 89k, and it's a measly 1.5% Edited October 21, 2015 by poochy Quote
Icebound Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 The per capita cost should go down as density increases. If it is going up then it is a failure of the government funding models. No. The complexity of the problem increases as density increases. So there is no way to tell for sure, whether per-capita costs go up or down. Furthermore, increased density has historically led to increased density of non-productive citizens as well, and you have to deal with that somehow, which usually means increased costs for the rest of us. Quote
G Huxley Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 Things to not look forward to. 1. Carbon taxes which will hurt the economy. 2. Legalized marijuana. 3. Our leader being completely overmatched by almost every other G7 leader. 4. Higher income taxes which will hurt the economy. 5. Huge deficits and debt increases. You must be fun to party with. Quote
poochy Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 You must be fun to party with. Yea, that's what we are talking about, partying. Quote
Icebound Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 I like how you've already pronounced them collectively guilty, and called up the firing squad without a single solitary shred of evidence any one of them did anything wrong. Do you have gulags in mind for those who think different thoughts than you? Maybe re-education camps? Wonderful imagination. How does the reply above relate to the original post? . Quote
Smallc Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 (edited) How? The only tax break i have seen stops at 89k, and it's a measly 1.5% It applies to everyone, that's the point. That means that you pay less tax than you would otherwise until according to the experts, $220K per year If you have children, the enhanced child benefit gives you more money than the previous system until you make $150K per year. It continues at a smaller rate than the current system up until $200K. At $200K it disappears. Edited October 21, 2015 by Smallc Quote
WestCoastRunner Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 Closer to home: Re-opening of the Kitsilano Coast Gusrd Base Inquiry into missing and murdered women Increase in our coastal marine protected areas Address the decline of sockeye salmon Address the increase in oil tankers Quote I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
Evening Star Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 It applies to everyone, that's the point. That means that you pay less tax than you would otherwise until according to the experts, $220K per year If you have children, the enhanced child benefit gives you more money than the previous system until you make $150K per year. It continues at a smaller rate than the current system up until $200K. At $200K it disappears. How? The only tax break i have seen stops at 89k, and it's a measly 1.5% As Smallc notes, it's a tax on income earned within the 44.7k-89k bracket, which means that it benefits everyone who makes over 44.7k (except for the top 1% of income earners who make over 202k, because of the new bracket) and no one who makes less than 44.7k. This is why I think it is a terrible policy. Quote
ToadBrother Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 As Smallc notes, it's a tax on income earned within the 44.7k-89k bracket, which means that it benefits everyone who makes over 44.7k (except for the top 1% of income earners who make over 202k, because of the new bracket) and no one who makes less than 44.7k. This is why I think it is a terrible policy. I'm beginning to think some posters don't understand how a progressive income tax system works. Quote
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.