Canadian taxpayers are a docile people.

[?Impact]

To sum it up (assuming the numbers are correct), the top 1% of income earners, with an average of over $450k income pay about twice the income tax rate as the rest of everyone else including children, retired, and unemployed workers. Their net income tax rate (federal + provincial) is about 33%.

a reference for the about 10% of income can be found here (10.3%) - http://globalnews.ca/news/2316192/heres-what-we-know-about-canadas-highest-earning-1/

Edited April 19, 2016 by ?Impact

[dre]

When you think of the top 10% basically carrying this country, paying for over half of everything all levels of government do, it should make you wonder about what these people are getting for that money as compared to the 50% who pay virtually nothing.

They aren't carrying this country, they have simply found a way to marshal almost all the profit and wealth generated by productive behavior and share less and less with workers. Of COURSE they are going to pay almost all of the taxes they have almost all the STUFF.

[cybercoma]

To sum it up (assuming the numbers are correct), the top 1% of income earners, with an average of over $450k income pay about twice the income tax rate as the rest of everyone else including children, retired, and unemployed workers. Their net income tax rate (federal + provincial) is about 33%.

a reference for the about 10% of income can be found here (10.3%) - http://globalnews.ca/news/2316192/heres-what-we-know-about-canadas-highest-earning-1/

How much of the nation's wealth do they hold?

[Argus]

quote?

You asked a question and I gave you the answer. If you don't like it go look it up.

[Argus]

They aren't carrying this country, they have simply found a way to marshal almost all the profit and wealth generated by productive behavior and share less and less with workers. Of COURSE they are going to pay almost all of the taxes they have almost all the STUFF.

Interesting choice of words, which clearly suggests that the ten percent have done something sneaky, underhanded and unfair because they make more money than you do.

Maybe they make more because they deserve more because they are more productive, because they spent a lot of time, effort and hustle to master certain skills and abilities and make something of themselves - as opposed to all too many who just settle for whatever is the easiest path.

[dre]

Interesting choice of words, which clearly suggests that the ten percent have done something sneaky, underhanded and unfair.

Not necessarily sneaky or underhanded at all. Sneaky and underhandedness is a thing for sure, but for the most part those people just played the game on the playing field provided and won. Most of them were just smart, savvy, and industrious is what I choose to think.

Maybe they make more because they deserve more because they are more productive, because they spent a lot of time, effort and hustle to master certain skills and abilities and make something of themselves

That's certainly true in lots of cases, and not true in others. You cant generalize the motives or behavior though.

The problem isn't people have done well under the current system. Every game has winners and losers and everything in between. The problem is that the economic playing field is slanted. Its incredibly easy to make money if you have money and credit so wealth is concentrated very quickly.

Its that wealth concentration that sets us up for the kind of political situation you describe. If you have high wages for workers and an affluent middle class then those people basically have the same voting interests that the wealthy have. You end up with business oriented governments that protect the current system and those that benefit from it. If things go to far the other way though you will get exactly what you're worried about... a big voting block that votes for redistribute policies.

You complain that the bottom 5 deciles pay no income taxes... but they only command 6% of the nations wealth. The top 10% has about 8 times as much wealth as the bottom 50%. Even the 7th, 8th, and 9th deciles are paupers compared to the 10th.

This is not going to go on for long. Its just a matter of time until that wealth gets de-concentrated.

Edited April 19, 2016 by dre

[Argus]

The problem isn't people have done well under the current system. Every game has winners and losers and everything in between. The problem is that the economic playing field is slanted. Its incredibly easy to make money if you have money and credit so wealth is concentrated very quickly.

You're talking about rich. I'm talking about okay, not rich. Sure, if daddy leaves you fifty million bucks you've won the game before it started. Few of those in the upper 10% had wealthy parents. These are people who are largely professionals, in engineering, in law, medicine, computers, architecture and business. There is no reason why anyone who applies themselves can't, with the aid of government grants and loans, and if they have enough brains, become a professional by taking those same courses in university. I am in that upper 10% and my parents were far from rich. They weren't even solidly middle class.

Its that wealth concentration that sets us up for the kind of political situation you describe. If you have high wages for workers and an affluent middle class then those people basically have the same voting interests that the wealthy have. You end up with business oriented governments that protect the current system and those that benefit from it. If things go to far the other way though you will get exactly what you're worried about... a big voting block that votes for redistribute policies.

Which is why the lower half has to have some interest in holding the government's spending down to what is necessary.

You complain that the bottom 5 deciles pay no income taxes... but they only command 6% of the nations wealth. The top 10% has about 8 times as much wealth as the bottom 50%. Even the 7th, 8th, and 9th deciles are paupers compared to the 10th.

Wealth does not equal income. A stripper can have a very high income. But they tend to have little wealth because most of that money gets wasted. How many strippers put their money into investment accounts instead of their nose or arm? Smart people build up wealth. Other people take Caribbean vacations every winter, buy tons of clothes, fancy cars, lots of beer, etc.

]The current system has produced the wealthiest societies in the world, and the ones which have the largest opportunities for those born to them, rich or poor. No other system comes close.

This is not going to go on for long. Its just a matter of time until that wealth gets de-concentrated.

Without a strong monetary incentive to 'get ahead', people will put less effort into doing so, take less chances, risk less. I persevered for years, put in many, many hours where other people were relaxing, partying or whatever in order to succeed and make the money I'm making. And after paying taxes and bills I risk my remaining money with investments every day. Why shouldn't I profit handsomely from my efforts and risks as compared to someone else who simply decided to take a vacation down south?

Edited April 19, 2016 by Argus

[Moonlight Graham]

You asked a question and I gave you the answer. If you don't like it go look it up.

Wouldn't the burden be on you who is making the claim to back it up? Isn't that the whole point of these forums?

[Michael Hardner]

Yes, "be prepared to back up your sources"

[Argus]

Wouldn't the burden be on you who is making the claim to back it up? Isn't that the whole point of these forums?

Okay. Forget I answered the question and look it up yourself.

[waldo]

You asked a question and I gave you the answer. If you don't like it go look it up.

#getOffMyLawn

.

[dre]

Without a strong monetary incentive to 'get ahead', people will put less effort into doing so, take less chances, risk less. I persevered for years, put in many, many hours where other people were relaxing, partying or whatever in order to succeed and make the money I'm making. And after paying taxes and bills I risk my remaining money with investments every day. Why shouldn't I profit handsomely from my efforts and risks as compared to someone else who simply decided to take a vacation down south?

Nobody said you shouldn't profit handsomely (if any of what you say is true... everyone is a tycoon on the internet).

But wealth concentration is not a function of those things. Its a function of an out of balance economic framework. Between 1940 and 1970 for example a mountain of people got wealthy, yet wealth was de-concentrating. We also had huge economic growth and unprecedented opportunity.

Wealth concentration cannot last simply because of human nature. We've seen this time and time again, from the Russian and French revolutions, the breakup of the Aristocracy with taxation, and removal of political power, the election of leftists in places like Venezuela. Everything from the Robber Barons, to the Railroad Tycoons, to the "New Deal".

The framework needs to be adjusted, and the sooner we start the more calm and orderly that process will be.

[Argus]

Nobody said you shouldn't profit handsomely (if any of what you say is true... everyone is a tycoon on the internet).

And yet you want to take away most of that profit to give it to people who take vacations down south every year instead of putting their disposable income into investments.

But wealth concentration is not a function of those things. Its a function of an out of balance economic framework. Between 1940 and 1970 for example a mountain of people got wealthy, yet wealth was de-concentrating. We also had huge economic growth and unprecedented opportunity.

Economic inequality has been declining since Harper took office.

The framework needs to be adjusted, and the sooner we start the more calm and orderly that process will be.

By 'the framework needs to be adjusted' you're talking about taking away my profits, right, and giving it to people who did nothing to deserve them?

[SpankyMcFarland]

So what are the facts about taxes? What matters is total tax take, not just income tax. Wealth and income are imperfectly connected as well. Seriously wealthy people have all sorts of interesting and no doubt COMPLETELY LEGAL ways of lobbying MPs and the CRA to reduce their contribution.

[dre]

By 'the framework needs to be adjusted' you're talking about taking away my profits.

No more than your profits are taking away from the wages of workers. Capital allocation in our society has swing wildly away from workers towards investors and owners. I would just swing it back the other way a bit to how it was before.

If we do it now with a series of small tweaks then it will avoid something more radical from happening once the top 1% owns 99% of the wealth. Small increases to marginal tax rates, and maybe to the rate system as well... estate taxation... taxation investment income at the same rate as other income.

[jacee]

No more than your profits are taking away from the wages of workers. Capital allocation in our society has swing wildly away from workers towards investors and owners. I would just swing it back the other way a bit to how it was before.

If we do it now with a series of small tweaks then it will avoid something more radical from happening once the top 1% owns 99% of the wealth. Small increases to marginal tax rates, and maybe to the rate system as well... estate taxation... taxation investment income at the same rate as other income.

I don't think they're getting the message.

I say get out the pitchforks! ?

.

[Argus]

So what are the facts about taxes? What matters is total tax take, not just income tax. Wealth and income are imperfectly connected as well. Seriously wealthy people have all sorts of interesting and no doubt COMPLETELY LEGAL ways of lobbying MPs and the CRA to reduce their contribution.

I think that it's more a case of seriously wealthy people knowing the right people, going to the right clubs, attending the right parties, rubbing shoulders with the politicians. Almost anyone is usually more willing to consider listening to someone they know then someone they've never heard of, and politicians are no different.

[Argus]

No more than your profits are taking away from the wages of workers.

So if I spend my money on trips to Hawaii or buying a winter home in Arizona rather than investing in Canadian companies that will not 'take away' these workers wages?

Capital allocation in our society has swing wildly away from workers towards investors and owners.

That's a meaningless statement. Investors and owners have ALWAYS held all real capital.

I would just swing it back the other way a bit to how it was before.

By taking away my profits, you mean, which will cause me to consider other uses for my money other than investing in Canadian companies.

Far more importantly, what you've ignored in your Marxist theories of income equality is that the financial world is now so very international. Make it less profitable for large organizations to invest in Canada and they'll invest their money elsewhere. Nor can the government do anything about that.

Ultimately, even a local company which feels itself too heavily taxed in Canada as compared to say, Ireland or Texas, will simply fire all its local workers and move. Please explain how that benefits local workers.

If we do it now with a series of small tweaks then it will avoid something more radical from happening once the top 1% owns 99% of the wealth

Which ignores the evidence, as I have said, that income inequality has not been growing in Canada but actually declining.

[Argus]

I don't think they're getting the message.

I say get out the pitchforks!

.

You do that. It might scare me into moving to Florida and taking my annual $130,000 income tax payments with me, to say nothing of the HST, gas taxes, municipal taxes and other taxes I currently pay here.

[dre]

Far more importantly, what you've ignored in your Marxist theories

None of this has anything to do with Marxist theories.

[Argus]

None of this has anything to do with Marxist theories.

Yeah, okay.

[dre]

You do that. It might scare me into moving to Florida and taking my annual $130,000 income tax payments with me, to say nothing of the HST, gas taxes, municipal taxes and other taxes I currently pay here.

The thing is, you could actually make MORE money if the framework was fixed. You ability to sell productions and service depends on a large pool of potential customers with signficant disposable income. In recent history the share of national income that goes to workers had dropped from 75% to 65%.

We're building a modern aristocracy.

[dre]

Yeah, okay.

Its actually YOU that's playing in to Marxist theory. Marx wasn't interested in stabilizing capital societies.He wanted them to get so out of whack that they imploded. And people like you were his unknowing foot soldiers.

[jacee]

By taking away my profits, you mean, which will cause me to consider other uses for my money other than investing in Canadian companies.

Nobody cares.

Far more importantly, what you've ignored in your Marxist theories of income equality is that the financial world is now so very international. Make it less profitable for large organizations to invest in Canada and they'll invest their money elsewhere. Nor can the government do anything about that.

Nobody cares.

Ultimately, even a local company which feels itself too heavily taxed in Canada as compared to say, Ireland or Texas, will simply fire all its local workers and move. Please explain how that benefits local workers.

Nobody cares about business owners who whine about taxes but have made enough money that they can just shut down their business.

Which ignores the evidence, as I have said, that income inequality has not been growing in Canada but actually declining.

Good to hear. That must be a very recent phenomenon:

/wealth-gap-widens-in-canada-as-richest-see-faster-rise-in-net-worth/

Link to support your claim?

.

Edited April 21, 2016 by jacee

[The_Squid]

Argus, on 21 Apr 2016 - 09:53 AM, said:

Which ignores the evidence, as I have said, that income inequality has not been growing in Canada but actually declining.

Another claim out of your arse without anything to back it up? You are growing infamous on this forum for doing this. What will you say when you are refuted this time? Will you claim that indeed you weren't refuted? Or will you claim that the study that reached the complete opposite conclusion as your claim is flawed because "Marx" or "left wingers" or "regressive progressives"?

This study is up to 2013. If it has changed significantly in the last 2 years, hopefully Argus can provide us a cite for that...

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/society/income-inequality.aspx

• Canada gets a “C” grade and ranks 12th out of 17 peer countries.
• Income inequality in Canada has increased over the past 20 years.
• Since 1990, the richest group of Canadians has increased its share of total national income, while the poorest and middle-income groups has lost share.