Trudeau 'revenue neutral' tax changes - not even close

[Smallc]

But that's not the point which remains the strangeness of obliviously ignoring the 100+% opportunity cost while focussing in on the 4% point cost.

To me, that's so obvious, I don't see a reason to argue about it.

[msj]

What is a 4% increase in taxes on a 200000 income over 10 years? 20 years? 35 years? That is a lot of money for a 30 something to consider through to retirement..........are you an accountant at the CRA

What is the cost of missing out on a 100+% increase in income over 10, 20, 30 years?

I mean really?

Can you not see that a 100% increase in income is more meaningful than a 4% increase in taxes?

[msj]

I don't think the reason(s) are nearly as important as the conviction to do so. Canadians clearly do leave...it transcends marginal tax rates.

I agree. I would gladly move to San Diego at the same pay I make now (even to convert it to USD). But the wife hates the US so it's a no go.

She's afraid of Americans (with guns)!

[Derek 2.0]

Can you not see that a 100% increase in income is more meaningful than a 4% increase in taxes?

I fully understand your point........and I return to a low base income of $0 + 100%.

[msj]

To me, that's so obvious, I don't see a reason to argue about it.

Yes, I know that you know that 100% is greater than 4%!

And that when 100% is applied to ones income (even if it is net after tax income rather than gross pretax income) that it is more meaningful than a 4% point increase in taxes.

Which is not to deny that the 4% point increase is not a p!ss off.

[msj]

I fully understand your point........and I return to a low base income of $0 + 100%.

Which renders any complaint about the 4% point tax increase moot since hitops was never going to pay it anyway.

[bush_cheney2004]

I agree. I would gladly move to San Diego at the same pay I make now (even to convert it to USD). But the wife hates the US so it's a no go.

She's afraid of Americans (with guns)!

I would move to San Diego without any pay....it is a great retirement locale, even with higher state taxes. They call it "sunshine tax".

Running from something is different than running to something. Trudeau's taxes may just be the nudge to do so.

A different perspective is to ask what Canadians get for Trudeau's tax increase ? What's in it for Canada ? Certainly not any more sunshine.

Edited January 24, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[Derek 2.0]

Which renders any complaint about the 4% point tax increase moot since hitops was never going to pay it anyway.

Perhaps not in this tax year, but as I said, that could very well have been his previous year's income..........as I said, are you able to file a clients taxes without knowledge of their income?

[msj]

Running from something is different than running to something. Trudeau's taxes may just be the nudge to do so.

Yes well put.

Which is why I wanted to put some numbers down showing how odd it is to run from something so small rather than running towards something so large.

It is very odd.

[msj]

Perhaps not in this tax year, but as I said, that could very well have been his previous year's income..........as I said, are you able to file a clients taxes without knowledge of their income?

This is very strange.

You continue to belabour a point that is irrelevant.

The point is that the 4% tax increase only matters to one in 2016 and future years and to the extent that ones income is greater than $200,000.

So even if hitops goes from $100k to $200k staying in Canada he is not going to be paying any of that tax increase. In fact his income tax rate will have gone down.

As for the rest, change my numbers in my post on page 9 to whatever you want: $2million in Canada versus $4 million in the US (in CDN currency). It will just reinforce the point that doubling ones income is meaningful compared to the fractional application of tax rates.

Edited January 24, 2016 by msj

[Derek 2.0]

This is very strange.

You continue to belabour a point that is irrelevant.

No, I continue the point that you and I are not privy to his details.....as such, until we are, your assertion that his is a liar is baseless........

.

So even if hitops goes from $100k to $200k staying in Canada he is not going to be paying any of that tax increase. In fact his income tax rate will have gone down.

What is hitops current income? What was his previous years income? What would his income be if he were able to obtain employment in the United States?

Three simple questions, but three questions that you, nor I, can presently answer.........as such, your opinion is simply conjecture.........round that circle.

[msj]

I suggest you read the first 4 posts where I ask hitops for clarification and he dances around an answer.

He clearly implies that he makes a high income but also clearly doesn't like being called out for making up stuff up (imo).

Even then, it doesn't matter as my numbers on page 9 deal with the relevance of earning enough income to pay the 4% point increase in tax as compared to doubling ones income as hitops referred to in his OP.

As even hitops states in post #4: But really this has nothing to do with me specifically. Highly educated, high performing people of all stripes will consider it.

IOW, my assumptions on page 9 are reasonable given that we are talking about someone (a highly educated, high performing professional if one to read post #1 and #4) who would be paying the 33% tax rate so ones income would be >$200,000 CDN to start with and, if one is going to make "2 to 2.5 times" more then it is also reasonable to assume a number that is, in fact, double as the estimate for earnings for outside of Canada.

Edited January 24, 2016 by msj

[msj]

To me, that's so obvious, I don't see a reason to argue about it.

The funny thing is that I agree with formula dude and Derek and, presumably, hitops that the increase rate can and will alter behaviour which may lead to some people leaving Canada.

But my point is that it is odd that the doubling of income isn't the attraction.

Oh no, it's the minuscule income tax rate increase on the portion of income above $200,000 that's entirely the culprit.

Then when I use some basic math skills to point out some real numbers to demonstrate this oddness then all of a sudden it becomes a matter of 100% is not greater than 4% because the income is $0 and therefore 100% of $0 is $0 etc ad nauseum.

It reminds me of the old saying: In the choice between changing ones mind and proving there's no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof.

Edited January 24, 2016 by msj

[Derek 2.0]

I suggest you read the first 4 posts where I ask hitops for clarification and he dances around an answer.

And I suggest you read the OP:

As far as the top skilled professionals leaving - I'm definitely tempted. I would earn around 2 - 2.5x when factoring in the exchange rate and Trudeau's plans.

Who makes more actual money based on current exchange rates, a Canadian earning $200k CDN versus an American making $200k USD?

Now forget the current exchange rates, he says Trudeau's "plans".......here you've jumped on just the 4% increase for high income earners.........did hitops mention in the OP he currently was making over 200k? Are there other factors that the Trudeau Government could have on the economy, and in turn, ones ability to earn more money? Perhaps hitops was projecting the savings he'd realize from current tax rates? Perhaps Hitops is in a field that earns considerably more in the United States? Maybe hitop plans to start selling pot in Texas? Maybe he plans to count cards in Vegas....etc etc etc

I don't know..........and nor do you..........

Hitops OP is vague at best, as such, your claims of his actual income/earning potential and differing tax rates are baseless and your own projections......and not made with information, confirmed or denied by hitops......so calling him a liar is unfounded and rude.

[msj]

It does not materially change the facts that I have used in my post on page 9.

Also, I would consider his reference to earning more when considering the exchange rate and Trudeau's plans (I.e. the tax rate) does imply an income greater than $200,000 CDN so my estimate of $250,000 is reasonable.

After all, he is basically stating that Trudeau's increased tax rate does have some kind of impact on him.

In fact he is implying that Trudeau's plans not only effect him but that the increase more than offsets the decrease to the lower tax bracket which implies an income greater than about $218,000 (or so).

Edited January 24, 2016 by msj

[Derek 2.0]

It does not materially change the facts that I have used in my post on page 9.

Your post on page 9 has no bearing on Hitops OP unless you know his previous/current/projected (American) income..............do you? Yes or No? A very simple question.

[waldo]

At any rate, for lofty HDI reasons, Canada offers no advantage.

of course you will choose to ignore the real measure of HDI, one that factors inequality, IHDI... as I posted earlier, within that IHD index the U.S. ranks a lowly 27th. Most certainly, given your stated personal leanings and past expressions, you apparently could care less about equality within the U.S..

[msj]

Your post on page 9 has no bearing on Hitops OP unless you know his previous/current/projected (American) income..............do you? Yes or No? A very simple question.

Presumably his USD income would be 2 to 2.5 times his CDN income based on his own words.

Presumably his CDN income is at least $218,000 otherwise Trudeau's tax changes would have no direct impact on him since the tax cut would wash with the tax increase.

Of course, hitops conveniently avoided any direct answer of my questions so who knows what his particular situation is.

But the point of my numbers does demostrate what nonsense he was implying.

[msj]

But the point of my numbers does demostrate what nonsense he was implying.

Let's take this further because I have been calling BS on hitops early posts.

Had he simply just stated something like:

"A CDN making $250,000 in Canada versus, say, $250,000 (USD) in the US should/would consider moving to the US solely for tax related reasons" (ok a little for currency reasons too) then I could buy that.

Even without the 4% point rise in taxes it is understandable.

The 4% increase though continues to increase the desire to move, no doubt.

But no.

He had to go on about more than doubling his income.

That's what gave it away and hence my questioning this oddness.

Of course it's odd: he was pulling numbers from his backside.

So from that point of view I think the focus should be on hitops claims rather than my debunking his claims.

Edited January 24, 2016 by msj

[bush_cheney2004]

Let's take this further because I have been calling BS on hitops early posts.

Had he simply just stated something like:

"A CDN making $250,000 in Canada versus, say, $250,000 (USD) in the US should/would consider moving to the US solely for tax related reasons" (ok a little for currency reasons too) then I could buy that.

Even without the 4% point rise in taxes it is understandable.

The 4% increase though continues to increase the desire to move, no doubt.

Of course...that's why NHL players in Canada want to be paid in USD. They are probably not happy with Trudeau either.

[Derek 2.0]

Presumably his USD income would be 2 to 2.5 times his CDN income based on his own words.

That's what he said..........but then, he could be an unemployed inert gas welder working at Canadian Tire or collecting EI.

Presumably his CDN income is at least $218,000 otherwise Trudeau's tax changes would have no direct impact on him since the tax cut would wash with the tax increase.

Where did he mention Trudeau's tax increase would impact him? That is your projection.

Of course, hitops conveniently avoided any direct answer of my questions so who knows what his particular situation is.

Perhaps because you're calling him a liar? (Of note, I'm still waiting for a response from him)

But the point of my numbers does demostrate what nonsense he was implying.

I don't see where you think he is implying anything, other then he feels he could now earn 2-2 1/2 times more money in the United States then in Canada..........and as an example, that could be true of any O&G sector worker now unemployed, or underemployed in Alberta, based on a multitude of factors.......

As I said, I don't know, nor do you........and on reexamining his OP, its seems much of your points are simply projections of what you feel hitops was suggesting.......and you calling him a liar in unfounded.

[msj]

Of course...that's why NHL players in Canada want to be paid in USD. They are probably not happy with Trudeau either.

Ok, that makes sense now: he plays for the Leaf's!

[msj]

Where did he mention Trudeau's tax increase would impact him? That is your projection.

Not only did he imply this but you quoted/paraphrased his implication. He said that his income would increase by 2 to 2.5 times when factoring in Trudeau's plans (implying the tax rate increase on income above $200,000).

Perhaps because you're calling him a liar? (Of note, I'm still waiting for a response from him)

Yes, I called BS on this early as it did not pass the smell test.

Hence my initial questions to him and his avoidance of a direct answer to that question (see post 4). That response in and of itself was most telling.

[Derek 2.0]

Not only did he imply this but you quoted/paraphrased his implication. He said that his income would increase by 2 to 2.5 times when factoring in Trudeau's plans (implying the tax rate increase on income above $200,000).

"Trudeau's plans" could mean anything.........where did he state, or even imply, that the 4% increase would impact him....quote it.

Yes, I called BS on this early as it did not pass the smell test.

Hence my initial questions to him and his avoidance of a direct answer to that question (see post 4). That response in and of itself was most telling.

In post #4, he mentions tax regime.........haven't we already established that an American will pay less tax?

Again, you're calling BS on something he hasn't claimed........hence your projection.

[waldo]

That's what he said..........but then, he could be an unemployed inert gas welder working at Canadian Tire or collecting EI.

a MLW search will indicate the member has stated he's a physician... at least half-a-dozen times. In this post he claims to be a specialist

As an oncologist, I would just like to say that...

does that put to rest your apparent uncertainty around actual income... or rather a fit within an applicable income range that you've already been presented with?

.