Smallc 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. The lower bracket encompasses far more people and lowering it by any real amount would have been monetarily prohibitive. Quote
Evening Star Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 (edited) The lower bracket encompasses far more people and lowering it by any real amount would have been monetarily prohibitive. So, in order to not lose too much revenue, they're giving a tax break to only the top 1/3 of income earners (except the highest 1%)? How is this defensible (unless you really believe that high earners are overtaxed, in which case, please come out and say that this is what it looks like when you grow the economy from the heart out, Mr. Trudeau)? Edited October 22, 2015 by Evening Star Quote
Smallc Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 So, in order to not lose too much revenue, they're giving a tax break to only the top 1/3 of income earners (except the highest 1%)? How is this defensible I think it's more that it's a ) possible, and b ) looks and sounds good. Quote
Guest Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 The middle class gets an income tax break, a new top bracket pays a little more and the lowest income families get more help with their children while those earning over 200k get none. Why is that a bad thing? What am I missing here? Do the wealthy need childcare assistance? I'm not in the 1% but am happy to have my childcare cheques cut and sent to those that could use the help. Quote
Evening Star Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 The middle class gets an income tax break, a new top bracket pays a little more and the lowest income families get more help with their children while those earning over 200k get none. Why is that a bad thing? What am I missing here? Do the wealthy need childcare assistance? I'm not in the 1% but am happy to have my childcare cheques cut and sent to those that could use the help. I think the people who benefit most from this might be better off than the term "middle class" implies. Quote
Guest Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 I think the people who benefit most from this might be better off than the term "middle class" implies. The middle class gets a tax break and I think they deserve it. Those on the low end of middle class get increased childcare. Those lower than that pay very little in taxes anyway and also get a significant boost in childcare support. This is a more sensible plan than giving childcare money to the wealthy, don't you think? Quote
Canada_First Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 The middle class gets a tax break and I think they deserve it. Those on the low end of middle class get increased childcare. Those lower than that pay very little in taxes anyway and also get a significant boost in childcare support. This is a more sensible plan than giving childcare money to the wealthy, don't you think? People who over $200k are already paying 54% of their money in taxes. AT what point is enough, enough? Quote
Evening Star Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 The middle class gets a tax break and I think they deserve it. Those on the low end of middle class get increased childcare. Those lower than that pay very little in taxes anyway and also get a significant boost in childcare support. This is a more sensible plan than giving childcare money to the wealthy, don't you think? I would probably scrap the child care benefit altogether but I agree that means-testing it is an improvement. (I'll concede that I hadn't factored this in when I was running my numbers, not having kids myself.) I'm not sure that a tax break is justified for the higher end of what you're calling the middle class (say people making $90K-$200K/year). But maybe by scrapping income splitting and rolling back TFSA limits, they will make up the revenue. If they scrap the Tories' boutique tax credits (and especially if they taxed capital gains more highly), a cut to the nominal rate might actually be justified. Quote
Smallc Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 (edited) People who over $200k are already paying 54% of their money in taxes. AT what point is enough, enough? People making up to $220K per year (and over $44K) will pay less tax under this plan. Edited October 22, 2015 by Smallc Quote
Canada_First Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 People making up to $220K per year (and over $44K) will pay less tax under this plan. Taxes are high enough. Why cant the government learn to live on what it has now instead of continually raising taxes? They won't be happy until we are all paying 100% tax. Quote
Smallc Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 Taxes are high enough. Why cant the government learn to live on what it has now instead of continually raising taxes? Who's raising taxes? Quote
Canada_First Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 Who's raising taxes? Trudeau Quote
Smallc Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 Trudeau For very few people, and really not at all when you consider the balance. Quote
Canada_First Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 For very few people, and really not at all when you consider the balance. So in the four years of his majority he will never raise taxes or add a service fee or premium or anything? Quote
Guest Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 People who over $200k are already paying 54% of their money in taxes. AT what point is enough, enough? Explain he 54% figure. Quote
Canada_First Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 Explain he 54% figure. No need to explain, I wrote it in English. Quote
Smallc Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 So in the four years of his majority he will never raise taxes or add a service fee or premium or anything? I don't have a crystal ball, I can only go by what he's said so far. Quote
Guest Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 (edited) No need to explain, I wrote it in English. What a childish response. Please explain the calculation behind the idea that those making over 200k pay 54% tax. The highest avg tax rate I'm aware of would be for Quebecers at 40.17% Edited October 22, 2015 by Guest Quote
Guest Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 (edited) The federal government only controls federal tax rates and currently the highest rate is 29% on the portion of income over $138,586. The Liberal tax plan will add a new bracket with a rate of 33% for the portion of income over $200k. While simultaneously reducing the tax rate from 22% to 20.5% on the portion of income between $44,700 and $89,401. Edited October 22, 2015 by Guest Quote
Michael Hardner Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 What a childish response. Please explain the calculation behind the idea that those making over 200k pay 54% tax. The highest avg tax rate I'm aware of would be for Quebecers at 40.17% http://www.taxtips.ca/taxrates/qc.htm This seems to say 49.97% Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Guest Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 http://www.taxtips.ca/taxrates/qc.htm This seems to say 49.97% A Quebecer earning $200k would pay the marginal rate of 49.97% on just their last 64K. Their avg combined provincial/federal tax rate would be 40.17%. http://www.ey.com/CA/en/Services/Tax/Tax-Calculators-2015-Personal-Tax Quote
BC_chick Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 I'm looking forward to all the people on this forum protesting that 61% of votes were against the Liberals and yet they got a majority! Only 26% of eligible voters voted for the Liberals! 74% of eligible voters did not vote for the Liberals. I await these protestations from all those who made the exact same points about the previous Conservative majority.... ... ... ... ... <crickets> NDP got half the votes of LPC and one quarter the seats. That's outrageous. Quote It's kind of the worst thing that any humans could be doing at this time in human history. Other than that, it's fine." Bill Nye on Alberta Oil Sands
Guest Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 (edited) I'm looking forward to all the people on this forum protesting that 61% of votes were against the Liberals and yet they got a majority! Only 26% of eligible voters voted for the Liberals! 74% of eligible voters did not vote for the Liberals. I await these protestations from all those who made the exact same points about the previous Conservative majority.... ... ... ... ... <crickets> The most common sentiment I hear from progressive voters is worry that JT did too well to honour his electoral reform promise. Most still want PR. NDP got half the votes of LPC and one quarter the seats. That's outrageous.Yet last time around Dipper vote efficiency was far greater than the LPC. I think it's time to move to something fair and proportional. Where one vote always equals one vote and percentage support equals percentage of the seats. Edited October 22, 2015 by Guest Quote
Scotty Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 (edited) Wonderful imagination. How does the reply above relate to the original post? Why would you ask that? You've already decided the 'top 3 or 4 in every department' have to go, even without any evidence any individual, let alone all of them, have done anything wrong. Collective punishment for an alleged bias which has not yet been demonstrated! Talk about brutally autocratic! Edited October 22, 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 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 The lower bracket encompasses far more people and lowering it by any real amount would have been monetarily prohibitive. More importantly, it was assumed those in lower brackets were already likely to vote Liberal or NDP. The tax break was designed to win votes from the middle class. Anyone who doesn't understand that 100% of the reason behind this was to secure votes is simply being dishonest with themselves. 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
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.