Lowering Voting Age to 16

[TTM]

On 2018-03-30 at 9:14 AM, Argus said:

He isn't going to pay $6k. Given the basic personal amount excludes the first $22k of income he will only be taxed on $18k. He will then be able to claim housing, transport and other tax credits to further reduce his or her income. If he has a non-working spouse, or one that only works part time, he can claim another $11k, for example. In all likelyhood the individual isn't going to be paying more than $2k in taxes and may well be paying nothing. The $300k person will be paying over $100k in taxes.

So you want to compare the 40k person assuming maximum deductions against the 300k person with none?  OK then: 

40K, 0K tax, 25K min. living expenses = 15K max discretionary income.

300K, 110K tax, 25K min. living expenses = 165K max discretionary income.

300K individual has 11x the discretionary income despite only making 7.5x more total income. Doesn't seem so unfair, even skewing the numbers in favour of the 300K individual.

[TTM]

On 2018-03-31 at 10:56 AM, Argus said:

Income taxes—one of the main sources of tax revenue across the rich world—are increasingly paid by a small minority of the most affluent. 

how much of that is due to increasing income and wealth inequality?  

[Argus]

4 hours ago, TTM said:

So you want to compare the 40k person assuming maximum deductions against the 300k person with none?  OK then: 

40K, 0K tax, 25K min. living expenses = 15K max discretionary income.

300K, 110K tax, 25K min. living expenses = 165K max discretionary income.

300K individual has 11x the discretionary income despite only making 7.5x more total income. Doesn't seem so unfair, even skewing the numbers in favour of the 300K individual.

You know the 300k individual has far more living expenses than the 40k, just to begin with. But what does it matter? The point is the 300k person is contributing 50 times more to the maintenance of the country than the 40k person and yet gets nothing extra out of that. And a great many people are contributing far less than the 40k person and enjoying the full rights of citizenship too - without any responsibilities. Plus, the money taken from the 300k guy - that's a LOT of dough. I mean, he could do a lot with that money - which he earned. Not so with the others. Income tax has been turned into a socialist income redistribution program whereby the successful people are forced to cede a big chunk of cash to make the losers lives nicer.

Why? Oh, I'm perfectly willing to pay to ensure no one freezes to death on the street or starves for lack of food or dies from lack of health care. But beyond that I'm wondering why my money goes to paying for Gameboys and home computers and big screen TVs and air conditioners and DVD players and cell phones and the like. Last year the Trudeau Liberals increased the taxes on the 300k guy in order to decrease the taxes on the 40k guy. And the 50k and 60k and 70k and 80k and 90k guys. Why?

Edited April 3, 2018 by Argus

[Argus]

4 hours ago, TTM said:

how much of that is due to increasing income and wealth inequality?  

Presumably none. It's due to government policy to use income taxes to redistribute income, and thus exempting more and more people from taxation.

[TTM]

18 minutes ago, Argus said:

You know the 300k individual has far more living expenses than the 40k, just to begin with.

That's a choice, though.  By min. living expenses I mean minimum to maintain a non-subsidised (gov't or charity) standard of living.

23 minutes ago, Argus said:

The point is the 300k person is contributing 50 times more to the maintenance of the country than the 40k person and yet gets nothing extra out of that.

They get a stable, secure, high quality of life country that allows them to earn and enjoy this money.  They are free to go earn that income elsewhere.  No one is forcing them to stay.

It is almost impossible they have not benefited directly or indirectly (or both) from both past and current services, and they may require and/or take advantage of future services.  In proportion to their level of taxation, probably not, but the social contract is that those that can afford to maintain the institutions do so.

36 minutes ago, Argus said:

And a great many people are contributing far less than the 40k person and enjoying the full rights of citizenship too - without any responsibilities.

They may not pay income tax, but almost everyone pays sales taxes and other forms of fees and taxation.  

I'm not sure why you would want someone to pay 2K in income taxes if they would then need 2K in goverment assistance to cover that cost

1 hour ago, Argus said:

. Plus, the money taken from the 300k guy - that's a LOT of dough. I mean, he could do a lot with that money - which he earned.

At worst he still has 11x more disposable income after taxes then the 40K individual, despite only earning 7.5x more income.

39 minutes ago, Argus said:

Income tax has been turned into a socialist income redistribution program whereby the successful people are forced to cede a big chunk of cash to make the losers lives nicer.

That's the pact that's been made in a Welfare State so that you don't have to worry about the losers rising up and forcibly taking the wealth  

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Presumably none. It's due to government policy to use income taxes to redistribute income, and thus exempting more and more people from taxation.

With widening income and wealth inequality, the ability of the lower income groups to pay taxes is eroded, which forces the tax burden up the income ladder to where the money is.  You can't get blood from a stone.

[Bonam]

4 hours ago, TTM said:

With widening income and wealth inequality, the ability of the lower income groups to pay taxes is eroded, which forces the tax burden up the income ladder to where the money is. 

There is no "widening income and wealth inequality" in Canada. Go check the stats. The widening inequality is a US narrative, which many Canadians latch on to without actually checking if it even applies in Canada or not. 

[dialamah]

7 hours ago, Bonam said:

There is no "widening income and wealth inequality" in Canada. Go check the stats. The widening inequality is a US narrative, which many Canadians latch on to without actually checking if it even applies in Canada or not. 

So I did.  There is both income inequality and wealth inequality in Canada, though the disparity is not as great as it is in the States.  

According to statiatics collected by OECD, Canada's income inequality is a little better than the States, ranking .322 on the Gini coefficient, compared to .391 for the States.  Ontario and BC are the worst provinces, ranking only above the States and Austrailia.  Income inequality has been increasing since the 1970s in Canada, but the trend slowed in the 2000s.  In Canada, the top 10% make 9 times what the bottom 10% make, while in the States the top 10% make 19 times what the bottom 10% make.

In Canada, the average wealth of families in the top quintile (the 20 per cent of family units with the highest incomes) grew by a whopping 80 per cent between 1999 and 2012. Conversely, those in the lowest income quintile saw their wealth increase by just 38 per cent. Furthermore, the top quintile held 47 per cent of overall wealth in 2012, up 2 percentage points from 1999, while the bottom quintile’s share of overall wealth dropped a percentage point, down to 4 per cent.

¹⁵

More of the gains in wealth for the top quintile were a result of gains from non-housing assets. Gains for all the other quintiles were a primarily due to gains in real estate assets.

 

Edited April 4, 2018 by dialamah

[Anthony]

19 hours ago, TTM said:

 

That's the pact that's been made in a Welfare State so that you don't have to worry about the losers rising up and forcibly taking the wealth  

 

 

This is historically accurate. Most of the upper High-net-worth individuals at this point understand the importance of keeping the low and middle classes happy enough not to revolt. In general this means food, shelter and entertainment . If you look at a majority of revolutions, it is through the use of the low class, in conjunction with the middle class, that overthrow a form of Plutocracy.

If you want to see a country in which the wealthy individuals who pay higher taxes rule the country-ie an wealth dependent Oligarchy- I would look to China. Although they do appear at the moment to have a strong economy, the citizens live at a fraction of the leisures we are allotted in Canada, especially through our collective social systems.

 

On 3/30/2018 at 4:51 PM, Bonam said:

The tax code should be simplified all around, get rid of all the credits and deductions and just make a simple progressive tax structure. Something like:

$0-15k: 2%

$15k-$50k: 15% on the amount above $15k

$50k-$100k: 20% on the amount above $50k

$100k-$200k: 25% on the amount above $100k

$200k-$500k: 30% on the amount above $200k

$500k+: 35% on the amount above $500k

 

I do agree with Bonam, in that income tax is far too high for the wage earners between and over 100-300K. At 29% federal income tax and 14.7% provincial (BC) for around $142,353 - $202,800 per year, this adds up to 43.7% income tax without deductions. This means that even if you are an excellent worker in the field, your reward is quenched by high taxes. As a way to mitigate the losses, most individuals look to making their position as a low paid employee within their own company, specifically set up to avoid high taxation. No private individual would want to earn over $200k per year. Instead, it would be far better to claim such earnings as a corporation, and in conjunction, a net loss for the corporation correlated to the individual's benefit.

 

I find the idea of looking towards the low or middle class individual income tax for ways to fund social and governmental systems at large is problematic. Yes, you can look to the individual who is earning $35k a year and maybe only playing $2k in taxes, along with other benefits. Yes, you can look to the high earner, who is earning $300k in a specific field. But in both cases,  these are actually not high earning individuals with reference to corporations. When you look to multimillion dollar corporations their profit values can be significantly higher. In fact, you will find, although there are many billion dollar companies who would normally pay a certain percentage of these social and governmental systems, it turns out they are instead legally lowering their  tax rates to less than 5%.

http://projects.thestar.com/canadas-corporations-pay-less-tax-than-you-think/

 

One may wonder why large corporations are not always firmly investigated for tax evasion vs individual income tax evasion. One of the most common reason is because certain tax evasion corporations have more funds and power than even the CRA.

 

 

In reference to the forum topic, lowering the age of voting does not constitute better results for the future. If anything, it makes the demographic of voters larger. There is little evidence that the voting from a 16 year old is better or worse than that of a 61 year old. However, life experience may come into play. If you look at voters in general, both a 16 year old and a 61 year old can be socially or commercially convinced into a specific way of thinking. Although, perhaps because of less life experience, the 16 year old may be easier to sway. At this moment, it appears that the problem is not in lowering the age but , rather,  in effectively giving voters of all ages an education on analysis and critical thinking on the ideologies presented to them by the given parties.

 

To conclude, because we have a democracy every individual should have equal voting rights.

However, more time needs to be spent on educating voters to differentiate the choice at hand. Not only  because they are possibly socially or commercially swayed to do so, but instead, because the future country they invision is determined by their decision.

 

For those who are interested, Mark Blyth does a fairly decent job ,  " why people vote for those who work against their best interests " ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsqGITb0W4A

 

[Argus]

22 hours ago, TTM said:

That's a choice, though.[/quote]

It's not a realistic choice. You're not going to live in a rented apartment and take the bus if you've managed to succeed and are earning a high salary. Or what's the point of third hard work and effort and vision anyway if you're just going to live like everyone else? 

22 hours ago, TTM said:

They get a stable, secure, high quality of life country that allows them to earn and enjoy this money.  They are free to go earn that income elsewhere.  No one is forcing them to stay.

The same can be said of the $40k and $30k people.

22 hours ago, TTM said:

They may not pay income tax, but almost everyone pays sales taxes and other forms of fees and taxation.  

Sales taxes are refunded for lower wage earners, who also get a percentage of housing costs as tax credits

22 hours ago, TTM said:

I'm not sure why you would want someone to pay 2K in income taxes if they would then need 2K in goverment assistance to cover that cost

Who says they need government assistance?

22 hours ago, TTM said:

At worst he still has 11x more disposable income after taxes then the 40K individual, despite only earning 7.5x more income.

The point is not about equalizing living standards but why he's paying 50 times more to the government.

22 hours ago, TTM said:

That's the pact that's been made in a Welfare State so that you don't have to worry about the losers rising up and forcibly taking the wealth  

The middle class is what keeps that from happening. The possibility of getting into the middle class if you work hard is what keeps that from happening. People invested in society is what keeps that from happening. When you tell people they deserve everything, every kind of government policy, yet have no responsibility to contribute it, that gives them an entitlement mentality which only gets worse over time. When you lavish them with money so they'll have a decent enough life without having to work at it, without having to increase their skills or try to get ahead, you produce a lot of people who are content to slack off at low level jobs without responsibilities. This ultimately impoverishes society in a number of ways.

22 hours ago, TTM said:

With widening income and wealth inequality,

According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer Income inequality ceased widening in 2006 when Harper was elected, and has narrowed every year since then.

[Bonam]

11 hours ago, dialamah said:

So I did.  There is both income inequality and wealth inequality in Canada, though the disparity is not as great as it is in the States.  

According to statiatics collected by OECD, Canada's income inequality is a little better than the States, ranking .322 on the Gini coefficient, compared to .391 for the States.  Ontario and BC are the worst provinces, ranking only above the States and Austrailia.  Income inequality has been increasing since the 1970s in Canada, but the trend slowed in the 2000s. 

I can't find stats right now that I previously remember seeing that went all the way up to 2017. But looking at the graph of Gini coefficient over the last few decades shown in your link, it clearly shows that inequality growth didn't just slow in the 2000s, but peaked in 2004 and has actually declined since.

I don't disagree that there was rising inequality from the 70s-90s, but the narrative commonly presented is that this is an issue that is happening rapidly today, rather than something that happened a few decades ago and the results of which are being felt today. 

Hard to argue with the stats that show that inequality has been flat or dropping for the last decade and a half. 

Edited April 5, 2018 by Bonam

[cannuck]

4 hours ago, Anthony said:

This is historically accurate. Most of the upper High-net-worth individuals at this point understand the importance of keeping the low and middle classes happy enough not to revolt. In general this means food, shelter and entertainment . If you look at a majority of revolutions, it is through the use of the low class, in conjunction with the middle class, that overthrow a form of Plutocracy.

If you want to see a country in which the wealthy individuals who pay higher taxes rule the country-ie an wealth dependent Oligarchy- I would look to China. Although they do appear at the moment to have a strong economy, the citizens live at a fraction of the leisures we are allotted in Canada, especially through our collective social systems.

This means that even if you are an excellent worker in the field, your reward is quenched by high taxes. As a way to mitigate the losses, most individuals look to making their position as a low paid employee within their own company, specifically set up to avoid high taxation. No private individual would want to earn over $200k per year.

I know a fair number of "high net worth" individuals, and the thought of "low and middle classes" revolting has never been part of any conversation.  Revolutions happen when people can't eat or be free, not when they are simply envious of people who are more fortunate or more capable.  The "low class" in Canada would be aristocracy in much of this world.

You don't have China right at all.  It is not wealthy people who rule the country, it is many people who rule the country that have become wealthy by abusing their power and granting themselves the privilege of skimming from the companies - most of which are partly or wholly owned by the government or from private companies who need to "cough up".  Wealthy business people are only friends of government if they are paying their bribes as required.   Considering that the rank and file of China were starving to death a few decades ago, and just entered the real world of working for businesses they seem to be enjoying a level of wealth, freedom and liesure unthinkable under the Maoist version of communism.  The didn't get to be the second largest economy in the world and the largest automobile market in under 30 years from nothing by being too poor to buy things.

You did get the "progressive" taxation thing right, though.   It is the penalty for success - and one of the things that stunts the economic growth of the nation.   That said:  I can guarantee you NOBODY in this country wants to have a low paying job to avoid paying more tax.   Taxation IS by far the most powerful influence on human FINANCIAL behaviour, but that simply does not translate into demanding to work for less to pay less.

[TTM]

4 hours ago, Argus said:

It's not a realistic choice. You're not going to live in a rented apartment and take the bus if you've managed to succeed and are earning a high salary. Or what's the point of third hard work and effort and vision anyway if you're just going to live like everyone else? 

The choice is how much and on what.  Minimum living expenses is how much it takes to maintain an individual / family without requiring assistance, either from the government, family, charity, etc. 

An average individual (depending on location) could probably live for min. 15k including housing, food, utilities, clothes, transport, etc., but would have few tax deductions, an average family of four likely in excess of 30k.  So fixed expenses including taxes (we are assuming a 40k income) would range 20k - 30k, average 25k

4 hours ago, Argus said:

The same can be said of the $40k and $30k people.

Yes.

4 hours ago, Argus said:

Who says they need government assistance?

You were talking about those making "much less than" 40k

4 hours ago, Argus said:

The point is not about equalizing living standards but why he's paying 50 times more to the government.

And still making (in excess of) proportionately more after factoring in the minimum cost of maintaining oneself and/or family.  I.e. even after taxes he has 11x more money to use towards improving his living standards, despite only making 7.5x the income.

4 hours ago, Argus said:

The middle class is what keeps that from happening.

Just so you are aware, lower to upper middle class, consisting of 60% of the population, makes between 18-55k for an individual, and 40-125k for a family.  300k would be top 10%. Heck a 40k single individual is upper middle class (4th quintile).

4 hours ago, Argus said:

you produce a lot of people who are content to slack off at low level jobs without responsibilities. This ultimately impoverishes society in a number of ways.

They don't impoverish society so much as form a necessary backbone.  Approximately 25% of workers, excluding the self employed, make less than $15 per hour.  Are you proposing that these workers get a raise or that the jobs go unfilled?

4 hours ago, Argus said:

According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer Income inequality ceased widening in 2006 when Harper was elected, and has narrowed every year since then.

I'm aware that it has ceased expanding and even narrowed slightly, but tax policy lags economics, so the tax changes may be at least partially a reflection of the large increases pre-2006.  Your comment was also specifically about Britain, which I may be wrong, but I believe has had larger and more recent increases.

Edited April 5, 2018 by TTM
clarification

[Anthony]

1 hour ago, cannuck said:

I know a fair number of "high net worth" individuals, and the thought of "low and middle classes" revolting has never been part of any conversation.  Revolutions happen when people can't eat or be free, not when they are simply envious of people who are more fortunate or more capable.  The "low class" in Canada would be aristocracy in much of this world.

You don't have China right at all.  It is not wealthy people who rule the country, it is many people who rule the country that have become wealthy by abusing their power and granting themselves the privilege of skimming from the companies - most of which are partly or wholly owned by the government or from private companies who need to "cough up".  Wealthy business people are only friends of government if they are paying their bribes as required.   Considering that the rank and file of China were starving to death a few decades ago, and just entered the real world of working for businesses they seem to be enjoying a level of wealth, freedom and liesure unthinkable under the Maoist version of communism.  The didn't get to be the second largest economy in the world and the largest automobile market in under 30 years from nothing by being too poor to buy things.

You did get the "progressive" taxation thing right, though.   It is the penalty for success - and one of the things that stunts the economic growth of the nation.   That said:  I can guarantee you NOBODY in this country wants to have a low paying job to avoid paying more tax.   Taxation IS by far the most powerful influence on human FINANCIAL behaviour, but that simply does not translate into demanding to work for less to pay less.

At this time in history it is improbable that revolution would be apart of any conversation with reference to Canada, since as you said this would only "happen when people can't eat or be free".  I would completely agree at this moment no such revolution would ever happen and no desire for revolution would occur over the majority. The comment was enforcing how historically what TTM was explaining, that at some point a long term Oligarchy could and usually does result in a revolution.

 

To sit on the government panel in China you first have to be well situated both in wealth and status, like many current governmental systems. China is an example of a wealth dependent Oligarchy,  yes China is significantly better off than Maoist version of communism, absolutely, I agree. However, do we want an Oligarchy in Canada? Where the wealthy casting significantly more votes than a low class individual? I would hope not, if we do, we can look to China as an example.

 

Well thank you Cannuck, I do find the taxation system absurd. The current system rewards those that turn from income tax as an employee working for a company, to corporate tax as an employee of their own company, to bring the taxes to a more manageable percentage. Better to keep it simple and have a reasonable tax rate to earnings. 

I do wonder from an economists point of view, if National basic income matched with a fairly high corporate or individual wage cap, would produce better wealth equality vs our current infinite wealth system? How much is required for an individual per year to live in leisure?  Would a cap of 10 million earned annually be acceptable to the majority of the population? 

[Anthony]

1 hour ago, TTM said:

The choice is how much and on what.  Minimum living expenses is how much it takes to maintain an individual / family without requiring assistance, either from the government, family, charity, etc. 

 

 

4 hours ago, Argus said:

It's not a realistic choice. You're not going to live in a rented apartment and take the bus if you've managed to succeed and are earning a high salary. Or what's the point of third hard work and effort and vision anyway if you're just going to live like everyone else? 

 

I agree, but I think the point is purely that the high income individual has the ability to live a better life style, because they net more than a low income individual in reference to wage vs cost of living . 

Yes you get taxed almost 50 % as a high income individual , take a worker earning $100 per hour, if this was taxed at 50% the individual would net $50 per hour 

Take a low income individual at say $10 per hour, if this was taxed at say even 5% the individual would net $9.5 per hour

This means the high income individual makes $40.5 per hour more than the low income individual . 

As a result the high income individual can easily go eat out at say an 40 dollar restaurant, however the low income individual would take 4 hours to attend the same restaurant. When the high income individual goes out and buys a $4 dollar tooth paste tube it represents only 9.87% of his wage, where as in the low income individual with the same purchase, comes to 42.10% of their wage. Yes the high income individual still has the ability to have a better life style than the low income individual.

To be clear, I do not agree with the current taxation rates to earnings for low income individuals,  low income as in $1 million annually or less. 

[TTM]

15 minutes ago, Anthony said:

I agree, but I think the point is purely that the high income individual has the ability to live a better life style, because they net more than a low income individual in reference to wage vs cost of living . 

The point I'm trying to make is that a person's expenses do not start at $0 -- there is a minimum cost to simply existing, whether that cost is to the individual, the state, charity, or what have you.  Therefor any comparison of taxes and income needs to take that into consideration.  Otherwise you get silliness like proposals for flat taxes.

I have no problem with people earning more and having proportionally higher disposable income, so long as wealth and income inequality are kept to reasonable numbers.

Edited April 5, 2018 by TTM

[cannuck]

8 hours ago, Anthony said:

To sit on the government panel in China you first have to be well situated both in wealth and status, like many current governmental systems. China is an example of a wealth dependent Oligarchy,  yes China is significantly better off than Maoist version of communism, absolutely, I agree. However, do we want an Oligarchy in Canada? Where the wealthy casting significantly more votes than a low class individual? I would hope not, if we do, we can look to China as an example.

 

Well thank you Cannuck, I do find the taxation system absurd. The current system rewards those that turn from income tax as an employee working for a company, to corporate tax as an employee of their own company, to bring the taxes to a more manageable percentage. Better to keep it simple and have a reasonable tax rate to earnings. 

I do wonder from an economists point of view, if National basic income matched with a fairly high corporate or individual wage cap, would produce better wealth equality vs our current infinite wealth system? How much is required for an individual per year to live in leisure?  Would a cap of 10 million earned annually be acceptable to the majority of the population? 

To be in power at the very top level within government, you need to have earned your way up through the Communist Party.  Provinces and even cities have tremendous amounts of autonomy between planning periods, and that is where business is more likely to have some influence.  Those relationships are extremely complex and well outside of the scope of the thread, so I'll just leave them (I have had offices there since mid '90s and even after 20 years, much of it is still a mystery to me).   BUT, to your point: our system of government is so different from China, we could never get into quite that peculiar form of government (although if you recall, the PM on either side of Joe Clark was a card carrying Communist bent on doing just that to Canada).   When it comes to proportional representation, as I have proposed give one vote to everyone at birth, and let their parents cast it until the child is no longer dependent.   BUT:  pay significantly more into the system, and give some increments of something in single digit multiples based on earnings.

Now, THAT is where the tax system needs to step in.   Flat tax is anything but unreasonable - it is the 100% fair way to tax income EARNED by productive endeavor (to note your point - many people move to small business to seek some tax fairness - and corporate tax is essentially flat tax).   Where I differ with the status quo dramatically is that people who have merely benefited from wealth re-distribution deserve no such treatment.   If that means a dependent adult living of the largess of the state, cap their voting authority.   By the same token, people who's income (or the proportion of income) that comes from speculative gain should be subject to extreme taxation, graduated similar to 99% day one, 95% year one and tapering off over time at 5% a year until reaching the nominal (flat) tax rate for income.  Bay Street (and Wall Street) income is almost totally derived from nothing but speculation, and casino capitalism is what will destroy our economy (and what left the hole wide open for China to pour the products into our market).  To summarize, give extra vote based on tax at some incremental levels of just off the cuff  $30k tax (at each level, fed and prov) up to maybe 5x votes at $150k - of EARNED income (from creating wealth) or I suppose even to include post tax speculative income.

Basic annual income?   You are going to think because my political beliefs are somewhere right of Genghis Khan I would be vehemently opposed - and you would be wrong (I am being presumptious here, so forgive me if that is not the case).  There is simply so such thing as government without some kind of social programmes, and we really need to take a hard look at what those are and how they should be delivered.   As it stands, we build an elaborate network of bureaucrats as gatekeepers to dispense privilege of access to the public purse.   That is not IMHO in any way fair - or efficient.   #1 is to get out of the way the simple concept that medicine is a social service and NOT a business.   At least medical insurance, and to some extent service delivery.   Much of the rest of social services could be eliminated by simply firing 99% of the bureaucrats and choosing a basic annual income level and cutting that cheque to EVERY Canadian.  No more treaty  BS, no more UIC, no more worker's comp, no more welfare no need for pensions.  After that, flat tax EVERY dollar and balance EVERY budget (so flat tax out of every working person's pocket directly relfects what the current government is doing).   You don't need a wage cap (and really don't want one) as the capital gains tax would fix the casino capitalist economy and drive almost all investment into productive business - that actually creates wealth.

[Argus]

16 hours ago, Bonam said:

I can't find stats right now that I previously remember seeing that went all the way up to 2017. But looking at the graph of Gini coefficient over the last few decades shown in your link, it clearly shows that inequality growth didn't just slow in the 2000s, but peaked in 2004 and has actually declined since.

According to a report by the PBO income inequality in Canada peaked in 2005, I believe, and then narrowed continuously afterward, helped by various tax measure of the Harper government.

[TTM]

On 2018-04-03 at 11:30 PM, Bonam said:

There is no "widening income and wealth inequality" in Canada. Go check the stats. The widening inequality is a US narrative, which many Canadians latch on to without actually checking if it even applies in Canada or not.

 

On 2018-04-04 at 6:41 PM, Bonam said:

Hard to argue with the stats that show that inequality has been flat or dropping for the last decade and a half. 

It is not that inequality is currently increasing, but that tax policy is catching up to past changes, now that they appear to be "baked in". 

Higher levels of inequality, having been stable now for a good decade or two, are the new economic reality and can no longer be considered a temporary blip, and therefore tax codes need to be adjusted to accommodate. 

Edited April 6, 2018 by TTM

[cannuck]

12 hours ago, TTM said:

 

It is not that inequality is currently increasing, but that tax policy is catching up to past changes, now that they appear to be "baked in". 

Higher levels of inequality, having been stable now for a good decade or two, are the new economic reality and can no longer be considered a temporary blip, and therefore tax codes need to be adjusted to accommodate. 

The purpose of the tax code should not be to penalize one's success and reward someone else's lack of ambition, skill or even luck.   Were we to use a bit of common sense and intelligent planning, taxation that rewards productive endeavour can increase total income to government to deliver social services.

The tax code SHOULD be used to stop predatory speculative activity, but if that drives investment into the productive economy and one is then punished for creating wealth, we are no better off. 

[Hal 9000]

Let's just skip the formalities and give school teachers 20 votes each.

[TTM]

7 minutes ago, cannuck said:

The purpose of the tax code should not be to penalize one's success and reward someone else's lack of ambition, skill or even luck.   Were we to use a bit of common sense and intelligent planning, taxation that rewards productive endeavour can increase total income to government to deliver social services.

The tax code SHOULD be used to stop predatory speculative activity, but if that drives investment into the productive economy and one is then punished for creating wealth, we are no better off. 

"I refuse to make more money because that would put me in a higher tax bracket", said no one, ever.

The progressive tax code does not about "punishing the successful", it is about avoiding "punishing the unsucessful".  As I've shown above, once you factor in the minimum cost of living, the so called "unfairness" disappears, and the high income earner still has proportionally higher disposable income.

I have no issues with taxing speculative gains at a higher rate.  But wouldn't that be "penalizing one's success and rewarding someone else's lack of ambition, skill or even luck"

[cannuck]

1 minute ago, TTM said:

"I refuse to make more money because that would put me in a higher tax bracket", said no one, ever.

The progressive tax code does not about "punishing the successful", it is about avoiding "punishing the unsucessful".  As I've shown above, once you factor in the minimum cost of living, the so called "unfairness" disappears, and the high income earner still has proportionally higher disposable income.

I have no issues with taxing speculative gains at a higher rate.  But wouldn't that be "penalizing one's success and rewarding someone else's lack of ambition, skill or even luck"

Correct question, which I thought I had made very clear above.   Speculative gains are not money that was "earned", it is merely wealth being re-distributed.   The shift to the Casino Capitalist economy has resulted in a flight of capital from investing on Main Street - where all wealth is created - to Wall Street.  Worse yet, the free ride on the taxpayer's back (i.e. ability to inflate M1 from speculative gains) has promoted new schemes to skim and scam on a scale never before imagined or possible (think of the derrivatives game - nothing but a bet on a bet - but exposure of as much as 20x WORLD GDP from the top 5 houses in Manhattan alone).

And, yes, taxing someone's income at a higher rate because they have done more or better work is indeed a penalty on success.

[bush_cheney2004]

8 minutes ago, cannuck said:

Correct question, which I thought I had made very clear above.   Speculative gains are not money that was "earned", it is merely wealth being re-distributed.   The shift to the Casino Capitalist economy has resulted in a flight of capital from investing on Main Street - where all wealth is created - to Wall Street.  Worse yet, the free ride on the taxpayer's back (i.e. ability to inflate M1 from speculative gains) has promoted new schemes to skim and scam on a scale never before imagined or possible (think of the derrivatives game - nothing but a bet on a bet - but exposure of as much as 20x WORLD GDP from the top 5 houses in Manhattan alone).

 

Taxpayers and their governments are not so innocent...playing the very same game with personal and public debt, currency manipulation, bonding schemes, tax policies, fiscal policy, bailouts, etc.  Wall Street has always been a casino, before banking and government joined in the game.

 

Edited April 6, 2018 by bush_cheney2004

[dialamah]

People who bring home six-figure incomes, even after taxes, whining because people who bring home half or less than that before taxes don't pay enough, or that certain people shouldn't be allowed to vote because they don't make enough money. Can you spell entitlement?  Me me me me!  Give me more and take away from those people!

Perhaps instead of focusing on how unfair life is for you, be grateful you were born with the health, intelligence and drive to get where you are and that you live in a society where your hard work does result in reward and sucess beyond what most of the world's people can even fathom.  Perhaps recognize that your success is due to many factors beyond your control, as well as those that are.  Appreciate what you have and what you were given, instead of crying that its not enough and not "fair".  Remind yourself that life isn't fair, but that you are doing pretty fucking good anyway.  And if you ever complain about some Millenial's entitled attitude, maybe look in the mirror to see where they've learned that.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Hal 9000 said:

Let's just skip the formalities and give school teachers 20 votes each.

Why? Everyone I knew who went into teaching was lazy and unimaginative and did so because they couldn't think of anything they wanted to do, lacked ambition, and wanted a secure government job that paid well and had lots of holidays.

Edited April 6, 2018 by Argus