So Kevin Oleary wants to increase immigration

[Michael Hardner]

But that's not the full picture.

[Argus]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

But that's not the full picture.

No, but it's also true. The top 10% pay a substantially higher share of taxes than they earn in income. Cheap political hacks trying to work people up into a proper indignant sense of class warfare never seem to acknowledge this. Ask an ordinary person what percentage of taxes are paid by the top 10% of income earners and see if anyone comes up with a figure anything close to reality.

Edited April 16, 2017 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

The top 10% pay a substantially higher share of taxes than they earn in income. 

Are you saying that graduated taxes aren't fair ?  Was there a time when it was fair ? Is this percentage changing ?

[Thinkinoutsidethebox]

10 hours ago, Argus said:

The top 10% of earners pay more than half of all taxes. I don't think you're propping them up.

On the other hand, the bottom 50% are responsible for paying only 4% of taxes. Since hey consume all the government services as the middle class and rich - and likely a lot more - this would be the group being propped up.

Okay, the top ten percent earned about 35% (starting $134,900) of everyone's total income and payed about 54% in taxes (tax rates 26% to 142,353, 29% to 202,800 then 33% on up).  http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html

The bottom 50% earned under $15,300 and payed 15% on that income. 

So a little math shows at $134,900 taxes paid are $35,074 so that leaves them with $99,826. Living within their means they should do reasonably well.

At $15,300 they are paying $2,295 in taxes leaving $13,005 or $1083.75 a month to put a roof over their heads, feed and clothe themselves and their families. Remember there is also provincial taxes GST and others.

Another thing is you have to remember the wealthy don't "create" their wealth, it's given to them by each and every one of us. You could say they did earn it but they definitely did not create it. The tax is capped at 30% so you earn ten million, you get to keep seven million.

You can also talk about how they "sacrifice" to get where they are, you forget they can stop anytime? They have choices. 

Another thing, the wealthy use government services like everybody else.

[Argus]

18 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Are you saying that graduated taxes aren't fair ?  Was there a time when it was fair ? Is this percentage changing ?

What I'm saying is that most Canadians seem to have been led by the nose by left wing politicians eager to cash in on class warfare, and believe that the 'rich' who are defined in Canada as anyone successful, have been cheating them, and are paying far lower taxes than they actually are.

Note that in the US when politicians talk about 'the rich' not paying their fair share they're generally speaking of those earning $2 million a year or more. In Canada, when politicians talk about and act against 'the rich' they're talking of people earning more than $200k per year.

Edited April 17, 2017 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

6 minutes ago, Argus said:

1) What I'm saying is that most Canadians seem to have been led by the nose by left wing politicians eager to cash in on class warfare, and believe that the 'rich' who are defined in Canada as anyone successful, have been cheating them, and are paying far lower taxes than they actually are.

2) Note that in the US when politicians talk about 'the rich' not paying their fair share they're generally speaking of those earning $2 million a year or more. In Canada, when politicians talk about and act against 'the rich' they're talking of people earning more than $200k per year.

1) To state, though, that the wealthiest pay the most taxes is obvious and that's how graduated taxation works.  The guiding principles for the taxation systems are "fairness" and "what works".  So to say that lower income earners are earning some kind of free ride, and to use that as a reason to keep immigration lower misses two points at a minimum:

-We have already been able to support services for lower income earners

-The system as it is reflects has resulted in higher gains for top earners

As dre, I think, pointed out - you have a simplistic and static view of the economic contribution of lower earners.  If they are resulting in higher earnings for their employers and more economic activity then that's part of the discussion and numbers have to take those benefits into account.

The discussion around the system "as it is" is apart from the discussion of net benefits of immigration, btw.

 

2) Noted.

[Argus]

12 hours ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

Okay, the top ten percent earned about 35% (starting $134,900) of everyone's total income and payed about 54% in taxes (tax rates 26% to 142,353, 29% to 202,800 then 33% on up).  http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html

The bottom 50% earned under $15,300 and payed 15% on that income. 

I'm not sure where you arrive at that second figure. The bottom 50% do not earn an average 15,300. And those who do earn 15,300 pay no income taxes. For starters, the basic personal amount reduces your income by about $11,400. So once someone earning $15,300 applies the basic personal amount their yearly net income, in advance of any other credits they receive, drops to $2900.

 

12 hours ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

Another thing is you have to remember the wealthy don't "create" their wealth, it's given to them by each and every one of us.

Really? I create a product and I sell it abroad. I get royalties from that product largely from abroad. How are helping with that?

12 hours ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

You could say they did earn it but they definitely did not create it. The tax is capped at 30% so you earn ten million, you get to keep seven million.

It's actually 33%. And you are neglecting to add in provincial tax, which is pegged to federal tax. In Ontario and Quebec the top marginal rate is about 53% I believe.

12 hours ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

You can also talk about how they "sacrifice" to get where they are, you forget they can stop anytime? They have choices. 

Another thing, the wealthy use government services like everybody else.

The wealthy, if you want to call those earning $150k-$200k are much less likely to need pogey or welfare or other social services. They would be unlikely to ever need the GIS, and their CPP is limited, in comparison to their earnings.

[Argus]

22 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) To state, though, that the wealthiest pay the most taxes is obvious and that's how graduated taxation works.

They pay more than half of them. My point, remember, was in answer to someone saying how the middle class is 'carrying' the rich and the poor. That's sheer nonsense unless you count those earning $150k-$250k in with the middle class, and our politicians define them as 'wealthy'.

Quote

 The guiding principles for the taxation systems are "fairness" and "what works".  So to say that lower income earners are earning some kind of free ride, and to use that as a reason to keep immigration lower misses two points at a minimum:

Your conclusion does not flow from your first sentence. Fairness is subjective in this case, and even if you say it's fair for the 'rich' to pay more that does not contradict the statement that those paying nothing are getting a free ride. If you are in Canada and benefiting from government services and paying little or no tax then you clearly ARE getting a free ride. An immigrant who comes here with his family and earns $20,000 is not paying income taxes. That means the cost of educating his kids and paying for his health care and all other services must be paid for by others.

Quote

-The system as it is reflects has resulted in higher gains for top earners

Higher than what? What evidence supports this statement?

Quote

As dre, I think, pointed out - you have a simplistic and static view of the economic contribution of lower earners.  If they are resulting in higher earnings for their employers and more economic activity then that's part of the discussion and numbers have to take those benefits into account.

The Fraser Institute took all this into account. I will repeat what I have said elsewhere: There is no economic case to be made for immigration as Canada currently does it. It does not help us in any way, shape or form. It does not help offset an aging population, does not address a low birth rate, and does not improve our economy. Again, while you can find lots of people willing to say it does, none can point to legitimate studies to support their statements. That includes the government. 

I go back to when Mulroney proposed tripling immigration in 1990 and his government asked the Economic Council of Canada if this flood of new immigants would improve the economy. They said that it might, at best, help a little, or could hurt a little. If you wanted to drastically increase immigration, they said, the decision needs to be supported on some other basis than economic. The decision was supported at the Tory cabinet by the belief that all those extra immigrants would vote Tory. 

However, given the ambiguity of the economic arguments, Ms McDougall carried the day by stressing the benefits to the Progressive Conservative Party from increased immigration, especially in urban areas such as Southern Ontario

http://immigrationwatchcanada.org/1990/10/24/mcdougall-wins-battle-to-increase-immigration/

Edited April 17, 2017 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

7 minutes ago, Argus said:

1)They pay more than half of them. My point, remember, was in answer to someone saying how the middle class is 'carrying' the rich and the poor. That's sheer nonsense unless you count those earning $150k-$250k in with the middle class, and our politicians define them as 'wealthy'.

2)  Fairness is subjective in this case, and even if you say it's fair for the 'rich' to pay more that does not contradict the statement that those paying nothing are getting a free ride. If you are in Canada and benefiting from government services and paying little or no tax then you clearly ARE getting a free ride. An immigrant who comes here with his family and earns $20,000 is not paying income taxes. That means the cost of educating his kids and paying for his health care and all other services must be paid for by others.

3) Higher than what? What evidence supports this statement?

4) The Fraser Institute took all this into account. I will repeat what I have said elsewhere: There is no economic case to be made for immigration as Canada currently does it. It does not help us in any way, shape or form. It does not help offset an aging population, does not address a low birth rate, and does not improve our economy. Again, while you can find lots of people willing to say it does, none can point to legitimate studies to support their statements. That includes the government. 

I go back to when Mulroney proposed tripling immigration in 1990 and his government asked the Economic Council of Canada if this flood of new immigants would improve the economy. They said that it might, at best, help a little, or could hurt a little. If you wanted to drastically increase immigration, they said, the decision needs to be supported on some other basis than economic. The decision was supported at the Tory cabinet by the belief that all those extra immigrants would vote Tory. 

However, given the ambiguity of the economic arguments, Ms McDougall carried the day by stressing the benefits to the Progressive Conservative Party from increased immigration, especially in urban areas such as Southern Ontario

http://immigrationwatchcanada.org/1990/10/24/mcdougall-wins-battle-to-increase-immigration/

1) Ok.

2) Yes, fairness is subjective. "Free ride" sounds unfair to me, but it's not because people working at low wages are doing so for a net economic benefit for their Employers, and for Canada generally. 

3) I'm talking about the trend wherein top earners have been earning more over recent years.

4) I looked at The Fraser Institute study again and I couldn't find that longer term analysis.  Feel free to point it out.  And even if there were no immigration, low earners would be deemed as 'free riders' under your fallacy anyway.

[Argus]

22 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

12) Yes, fairness is subjective. "Free ride" sounds unfair to me, but it's not because people working at low wages are doing so for a net economic benefit for their Employers, and for Canada generally. 

Says who? If they're not paying taxes they're not contributing to the maintenance of all the services society funds. They are instead draining government coffers. 

22 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

3) I'm talking about the trend wherein top earners have been earning more over recent years.

Says who? https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/in-canada-the-poor-are-getting-richer-faster-than-the-rich

22 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

4) I looked at The Fraser Institute study again and I couldn't find that longer term analysis.  Feel free to point it out.  And even if there were no immigration, low earners would be deemed as 'free riders' under your fallacy anyway.

Low earners are indeed free riders. Your contention that somehow they contribute to corporate profits and that this is, in essence, their contribution sounds silly to me. For example, corporate taxes make up about 11% of government revenue, or about $40 billion. Now according to the Fraser report immigrants alone, due to their low incomes, cost government $30 billion per year. If you add together all those who don't pay taxes and what they consume in government services it far, far outweighs all corporate taxes.

[Army Guy]

Dre:

Been trying to understand your Macro economics statements and have a few questions:

Quote

Nobody has ever presented any evidence of that. The only effort I have seen to take all those factors into account, concluded that immigration is still a net benefit to Canadians, but that the benefit is declining. Also its not just banks and construction companies. Nearly 3 quarters of our economy is selling products and services domestically. It effects almost everyone. And real wages are growing slightly over time, and employment is near all-time lows. This "sky is falling because of immigrants" narrative has no credibility.

If bringing in new Canadians is the answer as proven by your uncited sources.....then my question is why are we limiting the intake of immigrants during times of economic uncertainty...or economic down turns....If this was the magic pill as you describe it,  why is it not standard practice for all nations? countries like Greece, or other struggling countries.........why is canada not bringing in millions? to boast our economy.....Or is there a fine balance to the whole equation? 

What is the benefit and why is it declining ? 

Can immigrants be replaced by new born Canadians ?

 

Quote

 

I would like to see the following scenario considered.

An immigrant moves to this country... they need a place to live which results in demand for a new housing unit. A developer recognizes that demand and they borrow money from a bank resulting in about 250 thousand dollars worth of brand new money being created. That money is used to employ carpenters, laborers, realtors, and about half of it is spent purchasing materials from Canadian suppliers which creates employment in forestry, mining, and many other areas. The immigrant moves into that dwelling, and once they are here they need to purchase food, clothing, and a host of other services. All of the people and companies involved in providing all of these products and services pay taxes (not one single bit of all this economic activity is considered by the Fraser report cited over and over again by idiots), and all them employ Canadians whether they are recent immigrants or the grand children of previous immigrants

 

You make a lot of assumptions in your scenario, my first observation would be How many of these immigrants can afford to purchase a new home ?My guess is very few ....I mean i use myself as an example when i first joined the working world i rented an apartment....then a few co workers banded together and rented an old home.....As far as buying new furniture,dishes, household stuff, was all second hand or donations..... SO far we are contributing very little to the overall System, yes we pay taxes, but i was also getting most of my taxes back, as i did not make a whole lot of money........still not as much as average Canadian worker. and i did this for the first 4 years of my life, once i had completed my education and gained a better position in the company for a higher wage.....My point is i was almost 30 before i could afford my first down payment on a home for my family....and it was not new....

I think very few new Immigrants are buying new homes, upon reaching our shores.....

You've blasted Argus for attempting to explain why immigration is a net crain on our economy via taxes only.....you have said that those taxes paid out create more money than what was first spent.....Sounds like a The liberal's action plan for getting our economy started....perhaps i am not following the logic here, are you saying if the government gave every canadian a gift of 20 k plus it would have a positive effect on our economy....meaning it would end up collecting more than it spent ? ....And if it does once again why hav'nt we done it ....

 

 

Edited April 17, 2017 by Army Guy

[Michael Hardner]

34 minutes ago, Argus said:

1) Says who? If they're not paying taxes they're not contributing to the maintenance of all the services society funds. They are instead draining government coffers. 

2) Says who? https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/in-canada-the-poor-are-getting-richer-faster-than-the-rich

3) Your contention that somehow they contribute to corporate profits and that this is, in essence, their contribution sounds silly to me. For example, corporate taxes make up about 11% of government revenue, or about $40 billion. Now according to the Fraser report immigrants alone, due to their low incomes, cost government $30 billion per year. If you add together all those who don't pay taxes and what they consume in government services it far, far outweighs all corporate taxes.

1) You're making an argument against progressive taxation here.  Low wage earners can't contribute enough to pay their share.

2) Conference Board of Canada:

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/hot-topics/caninequality.aspx

But it looks like the top earners have seen their share lowered for the first time since 1982.  Go back a little further and see how the graphs look:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canada-s-richest-see-share-of-income-fall-to-6-year-low-1.2838970

3) Again, you focus on taxes and not on the billions that end up in the coffers of the employers, which by your count is about 360 billion.  That goes into the economy.  It's not a pie.

 

[Argus]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) You're making an argument against progressive taxation here.  Low wage earners can't contribute enough to pay their share.

No, I'm not. I do believe in progressive taxation, although I think it's getting out of hand. Progressive taxation is not intended to be 'fair'. It never was. It's intended as a grand social welfare program program. The problem I have is that the many left wing politicians now in charge seem to think that as long as people like me are making more money than they think is reasonable that extra amount ought to be taken from me and given to others. For no more reason than I am successful and have that money. This started out as a plan to defeat utter poverty and now it's morphed into a communist sort of belief in equality of results and distribution of income as opposed to equality of opportunity. No one is starving or homeless (except by choice), and the people Trudeau gifted with some of my 'extra' money this year were upper middle class types earning up to $90,000 a year. Just why did they deserve it more than I, who earned it?

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2) Conference Board of Canada:

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/hot-topics/caninequality.aspx

This is what's called "selective editing". You select what years to use for your baselines so as to give yourself the result you want. Thus they can say "Income inequality has increased in the past 20 years!" Which is true. What is also true is it has DECLINED over the past ten years. But that's not the message they want to put out. The report by the parliamentary budget officer made it clear that income inequality peaked in 2006 and has been declining ever since. I have posted it before. I can post it again if you desire.

But it looks like the top earners have seen their share lowered for the first time since 1982.  Go back a little further and see how the graphs look:

Did you happen to notice this report was from 2014, under the Harper government? It didn't stop Trudeau from campaigning on a class warfare platform, did it?

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

3) Again, you focus on taxes and not on the billions that end up in the coffers of the employers, which by your count is about 360 billion.  That goes into the economy.  It's not a pie.

 

The money goes into the economy? That money came from the economy. It's not new. You're presenting theories about how you believe money from poor earning workers might benefit the economy but without evidence while I'm presenting actual citations of who is paying for what. Your belief seems to be that by paying workers poorly companies are making big profits, but that fails to take into consideration that they might be paying workers exactly what they're worth, or even more than they're worth, given minimum wages. I'm not saying lower level workers contribute to economic activity, which in turn results in taxes. I'm saying you can't quantify it the way the Fraser Institute did by showing how immigration, given the poorer economic success of immigrants today, is costing us tens of billions in extra government spending.

 

[Thinkinoutsidethebox]

11 hours ago, Argus said:

I'm not sure where you arrive at that second figure. The bottom 50% do not earn an average 15,300. And those who do earn 15,300 pay no income taxes. For starters, the basic personal amount reduces your income by about $11,400. So once someone earning $15,300 applies the basic personal amount their yearly net income, in advance of any other credits they receive, drops to $2900.

Not average, up to, according to this http://business.financialpost.com/personal-finance/taxes/heres-what-the-wealthiest-of-the-wealthy-in-canada-earn-and-pay-in-taxes  and you're correct about the exemption. I stand corrected... 

11 hours ago, Argus said:

Really? I create a product and I sell it abroad. I get royalties from that product largely from abroad. How are helping with that?

You're missing the fact that we have to import something of equal value to replace what you exported, so in reality we are paying your income.

11 hours ago, Argus said:

It's actually 33%. And you are neglecting to add in provincial tax, which is pegged to federal tax. In Ontario and Quebec the top marginal rate is about 53% I believe.

I wasn't discussing provincial taxes.

11 hours ago, Argus said:

The wealthy, if you want to call those earning $150k-$200k are much less likely to need pogey or welfare or other social services. They would be unlikely to ever need the GIS, and their CPP is limited, in comparison to their earnings.

They do use police, health care, drive the roads, and many other services...

 

[Argus]

12 hours ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

Not average, up to, according to this http://business.financialpost.com/personal-finance/taxes/heres-what-the-wealthiest-of-the-wealthy-in-canada-earn-and-pay-in-taxes  and you're correct about the exemption. I stand corrected... 

What I meant to say was that your apparent statement that 50% of Canadians only earn about $15k is incorrect. Records show that approximately 9% of Canadian workers earn minimum wage, which is roughly $15k

12 hours ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

You're missing the fact that we have to import something of equal value to replace what you exported, so in reality we are paying your income.

No, we really don't. And what I export is intellectual property. This brings cash, primarily US and UK cash into Canada, which I convert into Canadian dollars.

12 hours ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

I wasn't discussing provincial taxes.

You cannot talk about income tax while ignoring provincial taxes.

12 hours ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

They do use police, health care, drive the roads, and many other services...

Yes but generally they pay more than they consume as they are less likely to use a whole host of services that poorer people consume.

[Thinkinoutsidethebox]

11 hours ago, Argus said:

No, we really don't. And what I export is intellectual property. This brings cash, primarily US and UK cash into Canada, which I convert into Canadian dollars.

Doesn't matter, somehow the country you're exporting to has to recover their trade deficit with Canada.

Reminds me of Harper doing the deal with the EU and coming home claiming it was going to benefit Canada to the tune of 21 billion dollars. Were the EU politicians going around saying they just negotiated a deal that would give Canada 21 billion dollars? I'd think that would shorten their political careers considerably. Only beneficiaries I see in these deals is the transportation industry (guess what that does to the environment...).

Intellectual property is a good export commodity as it doesn't contribute to environmental problems.