About those tax breaks for the 'rich'

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

My 2016 tax return indicates the highest federal tax rate ( On taxable income over $200,000)  is 33% and Sask. Provincial tax rate maximum is 15%. I am curious where the 90% comes in.

I understood that to mean that the taxes paid by those Canadians making over 70k/year makes up about 90% of the total taxes collected by the Canadian government annually.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

My 2016 tax return indicates the highest federal tax rate ( On taxable income over $200,000)  is 33% and Sask. Provincial tax rate maximum is 15%. I am curious where the 90% comes in.

If your taxable income is 70,000, you pay 20% and 12% you pay $, leaving you with $47,600. That is a pretty good sum.

If you are paying 90%, on behalf of Canada, we appreciate your financial support.

You misunderstand. If you earn little, you pay nothing. Also, if you earn more, but you have family deductions, like children, say, or unmarried spouse, or other expenses, you pay nothing. That means others must pay much more in order to provide you with the services you and your family require but which you don't pay for.  I am not saying someone earning over $70k pays 90% of his income, I'm saying the population which earns more than $70k are almost entirely responsible for funding this government. Those who earn less largely get a free ride. For example, this Wall Street Journal report shows the top 25% of income earners in the US pay 84% of income taxes. This article is from 2013. We know that income taxes on 'the rich' have increased multiple times since then, so the figures here will actually be low. They say:

this progressivity can help us understand why the top 1% of income earners paid a staggering 21.2% of the total federal and provincial taxes in 2010. The top 10% paid 54.8% of all taxes while the bottom 50% of Canadian income earners contributed 4% towards the collective personal tax bill.

So four years ago, the lower 50% of income earners only paid 4% of income taxes. I'd wager it's down to 2 or 3% by now, and the amount paid by higher wage earners, of course, has risen. I wager you would have to search long and hard among that lower tier of Canadians to find anyone grateful to higher income earners for paying for all their health care, education and other services, though.

Edited September 22, 2017 by Argus

[Queenmandy85]

Thank you. I did misunderstand.

[scribblet]

On 9/22/2017 at 6:01 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

......If you are paying 90%, on behalf of Canada, we appreciate your financial support.

I don't think he meant that they were paying at a rate of 90% but that the majority of all income taxes come from the higher income earners.

 

Sorry, didn't read the other posts first

Edited September 23, 2017 by scribblet

[eyeball]

On 9/21/2017 at 11:21 AM, PIK said:

When fife gets his teeth into something watch out. And I have a feeling we will find out trudeau's wealth is a lot more then he has led us on to believe.

When did being rich become something that irked right-wingers?

 

On 9/21/2017 at 7:19 PM, Michael Hardner said:

Whoops.  Is the PM evading taxes ?   The offshore part is the only thing I see here that would blow back on him.

Only from real lefties though...some right-wing politicians actually receive kudos for having the good sense to avoid taxes save money by moving it offshore.

[PIK]

On 9/23/2017 at 7:51 PM, eyeball said:

When did being rich become something that irked right-wingers?

 

Only from real lefties though...some right-wing politicians actually receive kudos for having the good sense to avoid taxes save money by moving it offshore.

When they lie what they are worth and then make policy that does not affect them . Same as martin setting it up ,so he could save taxes on his ships.

[eyeball]

Don't you mean avoid taxes? If that's illegal then shouldn't Martin have been charged with a crime? 

[PIK]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

Don't you mean avoid taxes? If that's illegal then shouldn't Martin have been charged with a crime? 

My understanding it was pretty blatant what martin did, maybe trudeau should investigate. Gotta tax them rich people.

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, PIK said:

My understanding it was pretty blatant what martin did, maybe trudeau should investigate.

It'll never happen, you'd need a real left wing government to ever expect investigations of this type.

So why didn't Harper investigate Martin while he had the chance?

 

Quote

Gotta tax them rich people.

You'll get no argument from me on that score.

[eyeball]

5 hours ago, PIK said:

When they lie what they are worth and then make policy that does not affect them .

So hypocrisy is the issue that irks?

Hmmm.

[cannuck]

Have left this alone until I heard a little more about what the little.....was trying to pull.   This amounts to all out declaration of war on the middle class.   Hate to tell you this: but hardly anyone who is in small business or self employed is "rich" by any stretch of the word.   Yeah, some farmers have a massive pile of assets, but their earnings from that huge amount of capital at risk are pretty modest.  It is that way because with the kind of bux it takes to own a small business in the city, a farm of that value wouldn't pay the phone bills.

Pretty easy to see what the Liberal Party of Canada thinks of people not only work hard for their money, but put what they make on the line to be in the game.

BTW:  I can fix this - just tax the living crap out of speculative gains and stay the hell off of income earned by creating wealth (i.e. adding any value).  That would grab the bulk of what is nothing but inflationary redistribution of wealth and encourage investment to head back to Main Street.

Edited September 26, 2017 by cannuck

[PIK]

On 9/25/2017 at 5:12 PM, eyeball said:

It'll never happen, you'd need a real left wing government to ever expect investigations of this type.

So why didn't Harper investigate Martin while he had the chance?

 

You'll get no argument from me on that score.

Because the media would not allow something like that. 

[PIK]

On 9/25/2017 at 8:33 PM, cannuck said:

Have left this alone until I heard a little more about what the little.....was trying to pull.   This amounts to all out declaration of war on the middle class.   Hate to tell you this: but hardly anyone who is in small business or self employed is "rich" by any stretch of the word.   Yeah, some farmers have a massive pile of assets, but their earnings from that huge amount of capital at risk are pretty modest.  It is that way because with the kind of bux it takes to own a small business in the city, a farm of that value wouldn't pay the phone bills.

Pretty easy to see what the Liberal Party of Canada thinks of people not only work hard for their money, but put what they make on the line to be in the game.

BTW:  I can fix this - just tax the living crap out of speculative gains and stay the hell off of income earned by creating wealth (i.e. adding any value).  That would grab the bulk of what is nothing but inflationary redistribution of wealth and encourage investment to head back to Main Street.

We don't have pensions or benefits ,just lose our homes if the business goes down. In my next life I am going to go to work for the government.

[cannuck]

So, you expect to re-incarnated in Mumbai?

[PIK]

17 hours ago, cannuck said:

So, you expect to re-incarnated in Mumbai?

Hopefully back in ONT ,so I can get on with hydro.

[cannuck]

2 hours ago, PIK said:

Hopefully back in ONT ,so I can get on with hydro.

How do you think you qualify to get engineering jobs at Hydro or government jobs in Ottawa!

answer:  You have your family go down the IIT (Indian Institute of Technology) for engineering or Tata school of social sciences for Ottawa and buy a degree (same one used to drive taxi cabs).

Edited September 28, 2017 by cannuck

[ironstone]

On ‎2017‎-‎09‎-‎21 at 12:25 PM, Michael Hardner said:

What does that mean? Is this different from other PMs or ... ?

Who are the other Prime Ministers that have said it's an unfair advantage to the rich?

I must point out that the "rich" already pay more in taxes than those with lower incomes.

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, ironstone said:

Who are the other Prime Ministers that have said it's an unfair advantage to the rich?

Ok.  It's hypocrisy now, I get you.

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 2017-09-25 at 10:03 PM, cannuck said:

Have left this alone until I heard a little more about what the little.....was trying to pull.   This amounts to all out declaration of war on the middle class.   Hate to tell you this: but hardly anyone who is in small business or self employed is "rich" by any stretch of the word.   Yeah, some farmers have a massive pile of assets, but their earnings from that huge amount of capital at risk are pretty modest.  It is that way because with the kind of bux it takes to own a small business in the city, a farm of that value wouldn't pay the phone bills.

Pretty easy to see what the Liberal Party of Canada thinks of people not only work hard for their money, but put what they make on the line to be in the game.

BTW:  I can fix this - just tax the living crap out of speculative gains and stay the hell off of income earned by creating wealth (i.e. adding any value).  That would grab the bulk of what is nothing but inflationary redistribution of wealth and encourage investment to head back to Main Street.

Most doctors who benefit from income sprinkling are in the top 1% of Canadians by income. They are not in the middle of the pack by any stretch of the imagination. 

[cannuck]

On 10/8/2017 at 4:28 PM, SpankyMcFarland said:

Most doctors who benefit from income sprinkling are in the top 1% of Canadians by income. They are not in the middle of the pack by any stretch of the'entry level" imagination. 

agreed on the 1%, but they ARE down at the "entry level" mostly sub $200k for GPs and half mil for specialists.  That is not big coin.  I know a few medical types in the chips, but they sure as hell didn't get there from their practice

 

Edited October 11, 2017 by cannuck

[PIK]

On 9/25/2017 at 5:12 PM, eyeball said:

It'll never happen, you'd need a real left wing government to ever expect investigations of this type.

So why didn't Harper investigate Martin while he had the chance?

 

You'll get no argument from me on that score.

They do pay a lot in taxes. No matter what people say. But trudeau is going after the middle class. Like I have said many times before, all the nasty stuff said about harper is coming true under trudeau and maybe even worse.

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 2017-10-11 at 7:20 AM, cannuck said:

agreed on the 1%, but they ARE down at the "entry level" mostly sub $200k for GPs and half mil for specialists.  That is not big coin.  I know a few medical types in the chips, but they sure as hell didn't get there from their practice

 

Most GPs I know gross more than 200k after real expenses and any reasonably frugal dermatologist/radiologist/ophthalmologist could retire after ten years. Admittedly, docs are at the bottom of the top 1% of earners but it's still way more than middle class Canadians make.

[cannuck]

On 10/12/2017 at 6:55 PM, SpankyMcFarland said:

Most GPs I know gross more than 200k after real expenses and any reasonably frugal dermatologist/radiologist/ophthalmologist could retire after ten years. Admittedly, docs are at the bottom of the top 1% of earners but it's still way more than middle class Canadians make.

$200k is just below what specialists start at here ($250 - I was referring to the employed version, not those who bill - considerable difference).  Yes, the target of the Liberals is the self-employed (actually personal service company MDs and specialists) as when you have only one actual customer, you are just a contract employee, hardly an entrepreneur.   BTW: that is the reason IMHO why so many MDs lose their ass in business: they THINK they are in business, but they are really just employees of a system that is cartellized - even monopolized by provincial CPS.  You/they need to step into the shoes of a DVM to find out what competition, billing, receivables, comebacks, etc. are all about - i.e. risk management in BUSINESS.

The government can't make such fine distinctions, and has drawn a target on the back of the only real engine of the economy in their moronic rush to finance importation of more terrorists and welfare recipients.

Edited October 14, 2017 by cannuck

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 10/14/2017 at 5:49 AM, cannuck said:

$200k is just below what specialists start at here ($250 - I was referring to the employed version, not those who bill - considerable difference).  Yes, the target of the Liberals is the self-employed (actually personal service company MDs and specialists) as when you have only one actual customer, you are just a contract employee, hardly an entrepreneur.   BTW: that is the reason IMHO why so many MDs lose their ass in business: they THINK they are in business, but they are really just employees of a system that is cartellized - even monopolized by provincial CPS.  You/they need to step into the shoes of a DVM to find out what competition, billing, receivables, comebacks, etc. are all about - i.e. risk management in BUSINESS.

The government can't make such fine distinctions, and has drawn a target on the back of the only real engine of the economy in their moronic rush to finance importation of more terrorists and welfare recipients.

If Canadian doctors and dentists were working in anything like a true market, e.g. the restaurant business, I wouldn't mind them calling themselves entrepreneurs and asking to be treated as such.   

Many of my colleagues have lost their shirts in business deals, often to avoid tax.

 

Edited October 15, 2017 by SpankyMcFarland

[cannuck]

2 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

If Canadian doctors and dentists were working in anything like a true market, e.g. the restaurant business, I wouldn't mind them calling themselves entrepreneurs and asking to be treated as such.   

Many of my colleagues have lost their shirts in business deals, often to avoid tax.

 

On 10/8/2017 at 4:28 PM, SpankyMcFarland said:

Most doctors who benefit from income sprinkling are in the top 1% of Canadians by inco

Two things, most glaring: anyone who goes into business or a business deal to avoid tax is an idiot.  Sorry, but it is exactly the wrong reason to be either in or exposed to business.

Which brings us to the axiom I have developed over the years: we reward the least productive people the most.

Secondly:  I really don't consider $200 or $250  a year "rich" by any standard.  top1%, yes, but hardly rich.  Think about it this way:   ANYONE who owns a house in Hogtown or Hongcouver are shelling at at least a mil.  Tens of thousands of them have housing worth several mil - but modest holdings by the standards of much of the ROC.  Do you think you could afford the mortgage payments on a mil on a gross of only $17k/mo? If that is sallaried earnings, your net would be under $10k and $6k of that gone just for the mortgage.   My point is: there are a LOT of Canadians earning well up in the $100k-$200k range, or they could not live in the cities and homes in which they live.