Trudeau 'revenue neutral' tax changes - not even close

[Smallc]

And they do.

And they're quickly replaced:

The number of master's and doctoral graduates alone entering Canada from the rest of the world is equal to the number of university graduates at all levels leaving Canada for the United States.

[msj]

I don't know how you can claim that. I don't know hitops, but I do know there are plenty of former high wage earners (and many more middle income earners) that are now either unemployed or underemployed, and there is a considerable advantage in terms of both tax savings and an increase in purchasing power in the United States versus Canada....that is fact.

I suggest you go back and reread my post using actual numbers.

Simply put, it makes no sense to stay in Canada at the lost opportunity of $200,000 and then all of a sudden turn around and claim that a $1,300 tax crease is what is causing one to want to leave Canada.

Jobs are being lost in Canada because of the cratering in oil prices which is a different story from what we are discussing here.

Of course one may go where the jobs are even if one prefers not to go somewhere else.

But that's not the issue being discussed no matter how much you would prefer to change the subject from the cognitive dissonance that I am pointing out.

Edited January 24, 2016 by msj

[msj]

It's not hard logic. People have preferences and there are tipping points where people's behaviour will change.

Depends on the individual's preferences.

Exactly.

And I am merely pointing out the cognitive dissonance associated with the "I'm gonna leave over $1,300" BS when he should have left over the $203,000 as pointed out.

[Derek 2.0]

I don't remember the last time someone bought a home here. Regardless, those aren't the only people moving there - the actual point.

No, they are the majority, my point.......the others, the middle income Canadians, are over leveraged on over valued property.

I understand the high house prices. Normal people still move to Vancouver - they rent.

From a rich guy in Hong Kong.....because they can't afford to purchase their own house.

*individual experiences may vary.

By all means, relate your past commutes in Vancouver.........West Side or downtown core to Westwood Plateau at 3:30pm..... now go

People still aren't leaving Canada over $1000.

I never said they were.

[-1=e^ipi]

Simply put, it makes no sense to stay in Canada at the lost opportunity of $200,000 and then all of a sudden turn around and claim that a $1,300 tax crease is what is causing one to want to leave Canada.

All I see here is a claim, with no supporting evidence.

If you want to refute the existence of tipping points for binary decisions, then please do so and submit your work into a peer reviewed economics journal. You will likely get a Nobel Prize.

[-1=e^ipi]

Okay msj, want an even bigger number than $200,000? Try $1.2 million US. That's the amount you get for the Nobel Prize.

Now go submit your proof of non-existence of preferences or whatever to an economics journal and collect your Nobel Prize.

[msj]

All I see here is a claim, with no supporting evidence.

If you want to refute the existence of tipping points for binary decisions, then please do so and submit your work into a peer reviewed economics journal. You will likely get a Nobel Prize.

Reread the post back on page 9 for evidence.

Go google tax calculators for BC and the US.

Consider the tax rate cut from 22% to 20.5% for that tax bracket and the creation of a new tax bracket starting at $200,000 with the rate of 33%.

Then do the math on the back of an envelope.

Voila, not rocket science but clearly shows cognitive dissonance.

Edited January 24, 2016 by msj

[Smallc]

No, they are the majority, my point.......the others, the middle income Canadians, are over leveraged on over valued property.

From a rich guy in Hong Kong.....because they can't afford to purchase their own house.

There's some kind of cognitive dissonance going on here. You're making my point. I'm not arguing Vancouver house prices are insane. I'm arguing that immigrants of all strips are moving, living, and working there - as proved by the 10% growth there (this is also a function of Canada's urbanization - some of the fastest in the western world) over 5 years.

By all means, relate your past commutes in Vancouver.........West Side or downtown core to Westwood Plateau at 3:30pm..... now go

My point is that not everyone makes that commute and not everyone makes it the same way...and those who do are still living in VMA.

Edited January 24, 2016 by Smallc

[Derek 2.0]

I suggest you go back and reread my post using actual numbers.

Simply put, it makes no sense to stay in Canada at the lost opportunity of $200,000 and then all of a sudden turn around and claim that a $1,300 tax crease is what is causing one to want to leave Canada.

I get that, but your starting point is based on him currently earning over 200K......I don't know that he said he was.

But that's not the issue being discussed no matter how much you would prefer to change the subject from the cognitive dissonance that I am pointing out.

I'm not changing any subject (we're clearly still discussing this), I'm pointing out your personal evaluation of hitops is based on as much dissonances as you purport him to be using......correct me if I'm wrong, but do you know hitops on a personal level? If not, to suggest you know his personal circumstances, or that he is bullshitting, is devoid of factual evidence........as such, you're just launching into baseless personal attacks of his character, and as far as I've seen, he's yet to engage in any such aggression towards you.

[-1=e^ipi]

Reread the post back on page 9 of evidence.

Go google tax calculators for BC and the US.

Consider the tax rate cut from 22% to 20.5% for ne bracket and the creation of a new tax bracket starting at $200,000 with the rate of 33%.

It's irrelevant. Your whole argument is:

If a person prefers consumption A in Canada to consumption A + B in the USA and if C << B

Then that person prefers consumption A - C in Canada to consumption A + B in the USA.

Which is nonsense.

All your are demonstrating is that some accountants don't know anything about economics.

[msj]

This has nothing to do with consumption.

It is about earnings and taxation and net earnings.

[Derek 2.0]

There's some kind of cognitive dissonance going on here. You're making my point. I'm not arguing Vancouver house prices are insane. I'm arguing that immigrants of all strips are moving, living, and working there - as proved by the 10% growth there (this is also a function of Canada's urbanization - some of the fastest in the western world) over 5 years.

The dissonance is coming from you.......you're the one pointing to the shining beacon that is Vancouver for the "middle class", better than Seattle, because of growth rates........I'm sure there are cities in India or China with even greater growth rates, hence they must be better than Vancouver

[msj]

I get that, but your starting point is based on him currently earning over 200K......I don't know that he said he was.

That's why I started out pointing out the oddness of his claim using the terms 100% to 150% for his income ( a reference to his 2 to 2.5 times claim) versus the 4% point claim for the taxes.

That discrepancy is huge and, imo, does not pass the smell test as already explained pages ago.

[-1=e^ipi]

This has nothing to do with consumption.

It is about earnings and taxation and net earnings.

earnings lead to consumption.

That discrepancy is huge and, imo, does not pass the smell test as already explained pages ago.

Go collect your Nobel Prize then.

Or maybe your refusal to do so 'doesn't pass the smell test'.

[msj]

Okay msj, want an even bigger number than $200,000? Try $1.2 million US. That's the amount you get for the Nobel Prize.

Now go submit your proof of non-existence of preferences or whatever to an economics journal and collect your Nobel Prize.

I'm not denying the existence of preferences.

What I am saying is that hitops cognitive dissonance is odd for focusing on, say, a $1,300 cost while ignoring, all along, the $200,000+ opportunity cost that he has been giving up all along.

That is clearly odd.

[Derek 2.0]

That's why I started out pointing out the oddness of his claim using the terms 100% to 150% for his income ( a reference to his 2 to 2.5 times claim) versus the 4% point claim for the taxes.

Did he address said claims?

That discrepancy is huge and, imo, does not pass the smell test as already explained pages ago.

Do as you may, but I'm not going to continue defending a person I don't know, from another person that I don't know, that is playing Ahab to a gold fish on an internet forum.........

From hell's heart I stab at thee; for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee~

[-1=e^ipi]

What I am saying is that hitops cognitive dissonance is odd

I don't see any cognitive dissonance and it's not odd. There is such a thing as the straw that broke the camel's back.

[msj]

But the point goes beyond hitops.

The point is this: hitops, you and that formula dude get emotional about the tax increase because it is forced upon people. (I too don't like this, for the record and agree with you guys on this - rising taxes suck!)

You don't mind the opportunity cost being given up because that is being freely chosen.

Take the emotions out of it, look at the numbers and rework them up to whatever income you like.

It's not going to change the strangeness of this because we are talking 100 to 150% increase in income versus a 4% point increase in income taxes.

[-1=e^ipi]

"that formula dude get emotional about the tax increase because it is forced upon people."

Where have I said that? Nowhere.

"It's not going to change the strangeness of this because we are talking 100 to 150% increase in income versus a 4%"

Go submit this to an economics journal to collect your Nobel Prize. They will laugh at you.

[msj]

Hmm, so I will be laughed at for choosing to work elsewhere for $200+k increase in income irrespective of a $1,300 tax increase?

Or how about this thought experiment:

Let's say Trudeau decreased taxes by, say, $2,000 instead of raise them.

All of a sudden this change is going to lead to lots of people to choose to move to Canada?

Even though their income is otherwise going to go down by 50%?

Huh? Is that the type of economics that the Nobel committee gives out prizes for?

[Smallc]

The dissonance is coming from you.......you're the one pointing to the shining beacon that is Vancouver for the "middle class", better than Seattle

When did I say that? I said that Vancouver was growing at a faster rate, despite a lower cost of living in Seattle. Obviously, there are other factors at play - i.e., overall, Vancouver is a more desirable city for people to live in (it is in fact rated in the top five if not as the top one in almost all surveys in terms of livability and desirability - that's in the world).

because of growth rates........I'm sure there are cities in India or China with even greater growth rates, hence they must be better than Vancouver

I bet their growth rates aren't driven by immigration.

Edited January 24, 2016 by Smallc

[-1=e^ipi]

If you even consider government as an employer

I'm not a fan of working for the government, but I did not choose the economic situation, nor did I choose to live in an environment where the primary employer is the government and private enterprise is slowly being lost.

One of the companies I work with takes people into our department with either 2 year diplomas at tech school or engineering degrees as students to find out if they have any real ability to actually work.

That's 1 company in a country of 35 million. Just because you know some people who are well employed does not mean youth unemployment and youth underemployment aren't an issue.

[-1=e^ipi]

Hmm, so I will be laughed at for choosing to work elsewhere for $200+k increase in income irrespective of a $1,300 tax increase?

You wont be laughed at for that. You will be laughed at for the suggestion that tipping points don't exist.

But prove me wrong and get your Nobel Prize if you want.

Let's say Trudeau decreased taxes by, say, $2,000 instead of raise them.

All of a sudden this change is going to lead to lots of people to choose to move to Canada?

Maybe. It depends on the preferences of individuals.

[Derek 2.0]

But the point goes beyond hitops.

The point is this: hitops, you and that formula dude get emotional about the tax increase because it is forced upon people. (I too don't like this, for the record and agree with you guys on this - rising taxes suck!)

Of course.

You don't mind the opportunity cost being given up because that is being freely chosen.

I'm not sure I understand this statement......

Take the emotions out of it, look at the numbers and rework them up to whatever income you like.

Oh I have, in my case (again I'm not speaking to hitops), I've been living Canada/US/Australian investment, employment and taxes for over 20 years.......... putting a form of nouveau patriotism over the ability to make money (and keep more of it) is an unstable emotional reaction.....in my opinion.

It's not going to change the strangeness of this because we are talking 100 to 150% increase in income versus a 4% point increase in income taxes.

Again, you're basing this on an unclear starting point......hitops could very well be unemployed/underemployed, and taking a job driving a city bus could translate into a 100-150% increase in income....that is the unknown variable, and since its unknown, suggesting he is a liar is unfounded......

[msj]

FFS, I am not saying tipping points don't exist.

I am commenting on the oddness of the alleged tipping point as was presented.

I think it is bull and have called it as such.

I have also admitted that it is entirely possible that hitops could be partaking in strange behaviour for placing excess weight on something that is effectively immaterial ($1,300) while ignoring what is substantial ($200,000).