Trudeau's new taxes

[Topaz]

For those who may have to pay taxes under this new law....maybe if u didn't give to charity, u may want to start now and maybe get back some of what the taxman takes.

[Moonbox]

It is available to anyone.

So is buying a Porsche.

Neither are a poison, but that does give us an insight into how you view people.

Or how poorly you understood a fairly simple statement and concluded something that stupid from it.

There is no end to this argument. Everyone always thinks that people making more than them should not complain, and no matter how much they pay, they will always be accused no not paying 'their fair share'. 'Fair share' is a concept with no endpoint.

Perhaps, but the wealthiest 20% has seen their income grow faster than any other part of the population over the last 20 years. They've received, we can say, more than their fair share over that period.

Low earning does not = deserving. What infantile thinking.

Like most of the pedestrian logic you've managed to cobble together for this argument. /yawn

Nobody is going to understand what you are saying, unless they have gone to the effort and grind to achieve what you have.

and you entirely lack perspective. I suppose you grew up in a rough neighborhood with an uneducated single parent who worked night shift and you had 3 siblings...Right?

a magic fairy just dropped it in your lap and you are 'lucky'. Hence, you owe others.

Talk about infantile logic. Owe others? If you're the Lucky Sperm you're the Lucky Sperm. It can't be understated how much easier it is for people growing up in an upper-class family with a stay-at-home mom and a Dad who's pulling in $150+ every year. It really, really can't. You're so out of touch it's sad.

[cybercoma]

Ok that would be the poorest income brackets, many natives peoples etc. What is your point?

Gee. How come we don't take more money from people with no money?

[angrypenguin]

For those who may have to pay taxes under this new law....maybe if u didn't give to charity, u may want to start now and maybe get back some of what the taxman takes.

I'm doing the opposite. I used to donate money to charities, not any more.

[msj]

. He promised to lower people's taxes, and he did. Versus Chretien and his bullshit reversal on axing the GST.

How convenient to forget the tens of billions per year of income tax breaks delivered by Chretien/Martin back in the early 2000's.

Anyone remember the 17% tax rate? Now 15% thanks to Chretien and then Martin.

Anyone remember 26% starting around $30,000?

And then 29% starting around $60,000?

Yeah, well, the 22% rate was introduced and by 2005 we had rates of 15%, 22%, 26% and 29% at tax brackets considerably higher.

And no more surtax.

Anyone remember the basic personal amount being around $6,400? Yeah, for most of the 1990's thanks to Mulroney and then Chretien taking away full indexation of tax credits and tax brackets.

Oh, looky, that was restored by Chretien and adjusted up.

In other words, a single person making $200,000 in 1999 versus $200,000 in 2005 would pay almost $7,300 less in federal tax in 2005 (a 13% cut in federal taxes).

If that same person was still making $200,000 today then the tax savings would now be $9,900 thanks to the indexing of the tax brackets and the basic amount tax credit (although some credit goes to Harper here as they did bump up the basic tax credit in 2007 by more than inflation).

And then there were the tax cuts to corporations but I will spare you the details.

IOW, taxes were cut lots.

Just not the visible GST because for some stupid reason people remember when they pay 7% GST but have no recollection of paying 26% income tax when it is deducted on their pay stub.

But, you know, facts.....

[socialist]

So is buying a Porsche.

Or how poorly you understood a fairly simple statement and concluded something that stupid from it.

Perhaps, but the wealthiest 20% has seen their income grow faster than any other part of the population over the last 20 years. They've received, we can say, more than their fair share over that period.

Like most of the pedestrian logic you've managed to cobble together for this argument. /yawn

and you entirely lack perspective. I suppose you grew up in a rough neighborhood with an uneducated single parent who worked night shift and you had 3 siblings...Right?

Talk about infantile logic. Owe others? If you're the Lucky Sperm you're the Lucky Sperm. It can't be understated how much easier it is for people growing up in an upper-class family with a stay-at-home mom and a Dad who's pulling in $150+ every year. It really, really can't. You're so out of touch it's sad.

We need to continue to punish those who strive to work hard....take their education seriously, so that the class clown who screwed around can have something for nothing.

Let's keep rewarding those who won't at the expense of those who will. Let's reward those who don't at the expense of those who do.

[angrypenguin]

Perhaps, but the wealthiest 20% has seen their income grow faster than any other part of the population over the last 20 years. They've received, we can say, more than their fair share over that period.

This logic is so flawed I literally snorted. This is a class of the middle class pretending they're poor as shit.

http://www.macleans.ca/economy/economicanalysis/rank-your-income-where-do-you-stand-compared-to-the-rest-of-canada/

The wealthiest 20% is in the middle class. So what is your argument then? You're saying the wealthiest 20% should pay more taxes? Then put your money where your mouth is and denounce the middle class tax cut.

[msj]

We need to continue to punish those who strive to work hard....take their education seriously, so that the class clown who screwed around can have something for nothing.

Let's keep rewarding those who won't at the expense of those who will. Let's reward those who don't at the expense of those who do.

Oh give up this ideological crap.

There are very practical considerations that go into setting tax policy: generating enough revenue for the government being priority #1.

Divide and conquer, which the Liberals just did, is also prudent. Give a tax increase to a very small part of the population who will not have enough votes to matter.

Giving the breaks to people under $100,000 also makes sense since those people tend to spend the money which leads to some multiplier effect as compared to guys like me who will just save the tax cut and/or spend it on our foreign vacations

In fact, that $670 I'm getting next year is going to be spent in Myanmar and Cambodia next fall.

[angrypenguin]

Oh give up this ideological crap.

There are very practical considerations that go into setting tax policy: generating enough revenue for the government being priority #1.

Divide and conquer, which the Liberals just did, is also prudent. Give a tax increase to a very small part of the population who will not have enough votes to matter.

Giving the breaks to people under $100,000 also makes sense since those people tend to spend the money which leads to some multiplier effect as compared to guys like me who will just save the tax cut and/or spend it on our foreign vacations

In fact, that $670 I'm getting next year is going to be spent in Myanmar and Cambodia next fall.

So those who make $200,000 or more should be paying for your frigging vacation?

What a load of utter shit. You feel like you're entitled to your vacation because you make under $100K? Wow, this just boils my blood some more. I'm going to be sure to share this.

I'll also share this with a few small business owners who are wondering how to make up for the upcoming payroll taxes. Apparently those that they employ may share this moronic belief.

I heard from a few that they feel bad they won't be able to offer raises this Christmas. I'm sure once I share them this story they won't feel bad after all.

Edited October 24, 2015 by angrypenguin

[socialist]

Oh give up this ideological crap.

There are very practical considerations that go into setting tax policy: generating enough revenue for the government being priority #1.

Divide and conquer, which the Liberals just did, is also prudent. Give a tax increase to a very small part of the population who will not have enough votes to matter.

Giving the breaks to people under $100,000 also makes sense since those people tend to spend the money which leads to some multiplier effect as compared to guys like me who will just save the tax cut and/or spend it on our foreign vacations

In fact, that $670 I'm getting next year is going to be spent in Myanmar and Cambodia next fall.

$150,00 - 3 kids - $570/month - Ka-ching- thanks JT.

Have a good day Mr. Tax Code expert!!

[BC_chick]

Plus, you're also missing, I think, the fact that I don't make over $200K, so that article really doesn't mean much to me.

Ok, so earlier we were discussing how unfair Justin Trudeau is going to be and how he's going to take all your money to give to the poor but now we've established that you're hardly going to be affected on your federal income tax.

That leaves the TFSA and carbon-tax. The latter is still a bit unclear and that leaves the TFSA. The only impact this will have on you vs. say a mutual fund is if you max out every year and after 20 years you take out all the money at once and get taxed on your increases.

Two points for your consideration:

1) If you take out all your money in one calendar year from a mutual fund instead of TFSA, it's more your own fault for bad investment planning than it is some socialist plan but you're welcome to find a way to blame Trudeau for for your poor planning.

2) TFSA is not a right. Nobody is taking money *away* from you and taking giving it to the poor. You may have lost a tax loop hole (one that only benefits a very small portion of poeple), but to say that it's a socialist policy is a blatant lie.

[angrypenguin]

Ok, so earlier we were discussing how unfair Justin Trudeau is going to be and how he's going to take all your money to give to the poor but now we've established that you're hardly going to be affected on your federal income tax.

That leaves the TFSA and carbon-tax. The latter is still a bit unclear and that leaves the TFSA. The only impact this will have on you vs. say a mutual fund is if you max out every year and after 20 years you take out all the money at once and get taxed on your increases.

Two points for your consideration:

1) If you take out all your money in one calendar year from a mutual fund instead of TFSA, it's more your own fault for bad investment planning than it is some socialist plan but you're welcome to find a way to blame Trudeau for for your poor planning.

2) TFSA is not a right. Nobody is taking money *away* from you and taking giving it to the poor. You may have lost a tax loop hole (one that only benefits a very small portion of poeple), but to say that it's a socialist policy is a blatant lie.

You're missing the point. My money isn't going to the POOR, it's going to the over entitled middle class who want to take a vacation with my money.

[BC_chick]

How is your money going to the middle-class? You've admitted that your payroll tax will not be affected.

[angrypenguin]

How is your money going to the middle-class? You've admitted that your payroll tax will not be affected.

Because I will be crossing the 200k threshold shortly. And it was more of a blanket statement about the rich having to subsidize the middle class more and more to pay for their vacation.

And just because I'm not affected by payroll taxes doesn't mean my wife will not be.

[BC_chick]

Because I will be crossing the 200k threshold shortly. And it was more of a blanket statement about the rich having to subsidize the middle class more and more to pay for their vacation.

And just because I'm not affected by payroll taxes doesn't mean my wife will not be.

You didn't read the article I posted did you? Seriously, you have to stop repeating these highly inaccurate talking points. From the article:

For someone with $250,000 in annual taxable income — that is, what they have left after all those substantial deductions — the additional hit on their tax bill will be $1,325 a year, Kesselman calculates. This is less than a 0.5-per-cent increase in their total federal tax bill payable. And, since provincial income tax rates won’t change, it is significantly lower still as a percentage of their total income tax bill.

When taxable income rises to $500,000 a year, the tax bite will be harder. He calculated it to be approaching $1,000 a month, or 2.25 per cent of the total federal income tax bill.

[msj]

$150,00 - 3 kids - $570/month - Ka-ching- thanks JT.

Have a good day Mr. Tax Code expert!!

Good for you.

I don't have any kids so I budget $15,000+ per year for travel and lots each year in TFSA/RRSP contributions while you buy diapers.

[msj]

So those who make $200,000 or more should be paying for your frigging vacation?

What a load of utter shit. You feel like you're entitled to your vacation because you make under $100K? Wow, this just boils my blood some more. I'm going to be sure to share this.

I'll also share this with a few small business owners who are wondering how to make up for the upcoming payroll taxes. Apparently those that they employ may share this moronic belief.

I heard from a few that they feel bad they won't be able to offer raises this Christmas. I'm sure once I share them this story they won't feel bad after all.

I make much more than $100k.

But I get to split it with a small business corporation so I don't need to worry about the $200k limit.

Also, if you are making, say, $225,000 per year then buy a $25,000 RRSP.

This will lower your taxable income down to $200,000 so you won't pay any of that 33% tax, you will have tax deferred savings, and you will still save the $670 of income taxes on that portion of your income between $44k and $89k.

Rocket science this is not.

[cybercoma]

If angrypenguin made $200k he would know these tips already.

[angrypenguin]

I make much more than $100k.

But I get to split it with a small business corporation so I don't need to worry about the $200k limit.

Also, if you are making, say, $225,000 per year then buy a $25,000 RRSP.

This will lower your taxable income down to $200,000 so you won't pay any of that 33% tax, you will have tax deferred savings, and you will still save the $670 of income taxes on that portion of your income between $44k and $89k.

Rocket science this is not.

You're making a fatal assumption which is incorrect. You're assuming that's where I will max out at in my career, and that is not a valid statement.

[angrypenguin]

You didn't read the article I posted did you? Seriously, you have to stop repeating these highly inaccurate talking points. From the article:

And you're entitled to even 0.5% how?

Yes, I read the article and still rolled my eyes. Even if it's 0.01% more than what they are paying now...the fact you feel you're entitled to it disappoints me.

[On Guard for Thee]

If angrypenguin made $200k he would know these tips already.

Yes, the attempts to convince are failing in many ways it seems.

[angrypenguin]

Yes, the attempts to convince are failing in many ways it seems.

I simply explained my situation. It's simply pointless convincing someone who thinks making $X is too much (lol) and that the "rich" should pay. People really need to take a look at the 1% in Canada vs the 1% in the US.

Did you know that someone in Canada that the top 20% or whatever is making $50k a year? That's just...sad.

[Michael Hardner]

Please stop the sniping

[dre]

You're missing the point. My money isn't going to the POOR, it's going to the over entitled middle class who want to take a vacation with my money.

No your money goes to everything the government does.

[dre]

Yes, the attempts to convince are failing in many ways it seems.

Yup! We have ourselves another internet tycoon! LOL.