Tax Policy

[stubblejumper]

QUOTE

Small business is the engine that drives our economy. Isn't that right ?

OK, so what. Shouldn't they still pay their share of the taxes?

No, a locally run small business should be nearly tax exempt. Multi-nationals that take profit and resources out of Canada should have to pay more.

[Renegade]

Given all the exemptions which would be required I think your proposal would be pretty complex and expensive to enforce. In many ways it is not that different from the current system. I don't really see that it is "fairer" than the current system.

How about this instead:

The government has to provide for many fixed costs (eg debt interest, defence, admininstation). Let's say that it incurs the minimal amount of fixed cost. It pays for this cost via a fixed tax on every individual in Canada (ie a "head" tax).

Any other services it provides on a "pay-per-use" basis, with the ability to opt out if you don't want the service. (eg if I don't want government provided CPP, I opt out and invest my funds elsewhere)

Any "social safety net" services (employment insurance, healthcare, welfare, etc) are modeled after insurances, again with the ability to opt out.

[Toro]

Capital/wealth taxes are the most vile form of taxation. If someone saves money they should be entitled to keep it forever. If that asset generates income the tax the income. If some sells an asset the tax the profit from the sale.

I agree completely. However, that's exactly what property taxes are.

Property taxes are not the same as wealth taxes because they are not calculated as a fixed percentage of the asset value. What usually happens is the city figures out how much money it needs and sets the mill rate based on the current property values in the city. In other words, it is a way of dividing up the cost of running the city that could have been done in other ways that would produce the same result. For example, property taxes could be levied on the number of square feet of property or the number of bedrooms - both measures correlate with the property value.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They are the same thing. Its a tax on the value of unsold income regardless of the mechanism or reason. The more the appraised value of your property, the more you will pay. Its true that the rate may vary from year to year, but the effect is the same. That's why some have to sell their homes in jurisdictions where property prices have skyrocketed because they cannot afford the taxes, i.e. Vancouver.

[Yaro]

Actually all of this rediculous notion of taxation fairness could easily be down away with (along with many other problems) if there was a 100% death tax and severe limits on foriegn investment.

[Riverwind]

Actually all of this rediculous notion of taxation fairness could easily be down away with (along with many other problems) if there was a 100% death tax and severe limits on foriegn investment.

Why on earth would this solve anything? People don't die that often and in the face of a 100% death tax would likely give their money away first. Restricting foreign investment would also be really dumb in a world were trade follows freely.

[Yaro]

Why on earth would this solve anything? People don't die that often and in the face of a 100% death tax would likely give their money away first. Restricting foreign investment would also be really dumb in a world were trade follows freely.

Took a whole 10 seconds to think on it huh.

First off a death tax could fairly easily be made unavoidable, you can't simply "give your money away" in most districts regardless, and in any case any significant sum could very easily be traced.

7.67 deaths/1000 last year = 237770 deaths last year

Even if you take the miniscule value of 250 000 average value on death that comes out to 59 442 500 000.

Secondly a 100% death tax would provide a tax income near the current income tax, is far fairer then any other form of taxation as only the person that earned the income is due it and in absence of that person then the remainder should rightfully be redistributed.

Thirdly it would result in a rebalancing in the value of goods to a more reasonable level, housing prices would fall dramatically for one. Liquidity would rise dramatically in the long run and a large group of people who do nothing but subsist off the work of there ancestors would have to actually start contributing to society as a whole.

There are also a whole host of social issues that would be solved by a 100% death tax, they could be found in any of the many books on the formation of aristocracies and the problems of generational wealth but aren't within the scope of this thread so I won't "go there".

This would however require (of course) a great deal managing (restrictions of foreign investment) so that foreign nationals don't control the land/resource markets.

I would also point out that the "good" of foreign investment has never actually gotten out of the theory stage. There really is no good example of a nation being helped in a significant way by foreign market investments (but there sure are allot of examples of nations being hurt by them).

[Renegade]

Even if I couldn't give away my money, with a 100% death tax, wouldn't it make much more economic sense for me to spend it all before I die, and leave nothing for the govenment to tax?

[Yaro]

Even if I couldn't give away my money, with a 100% death tax, wouldn't it make much more economic sense for me to spend it all before I die, and leave nothing for the govenment to tax?

Absolutely, thus increasing the liquidity of the market, reduceing the generational debt load and a whole basket of other good side effects. That is entirely besides the fact that you earned it, damnit you should be the one to enjoy it.

[Riverwind]

Thirdly it would result in a rebalancing in the value of goods to a more reasonable level, housing prices would fall dramatically for one. Liquidity would rise dramatically in the long run and a large group of people who do nothing but subsist off the work of there ancestors would have to actually start contributing to society as a whole.

This is typical NDP 'if you are rich you must be evil' thinking. Such a blanket rule would end up hurting the middle class much more than the wealthy because the middle class could not afford to move assets to foreign tax havens.

There are so many examples were a 100% death tax would be rediculously unfair:

1) Parents of young children die in an accident without adequate life insurance but they have a few 100 thousand in assets. The children certainly deserve these assets.

2) A farmer (or any other small businessman) wants his child to take over the family business. The business is the only asset so the child cannot afford to 'buy' the farm from the govt on death.

I could go on. The fact is the vast majority of people would consider a 100% death tax to be unfair to almost everyone. Even people who disliked the super rich would probably concede that they should be allowed to pass some weath onto their children.

I would also point out that the "good" of foreign investment has never actually gotten out of the theory stage. There really is no good example of a nation being helped in a significant way by foreign market investments (but there sure are allot of examples of nations being hurt by them).

If Canada prevented foreign investment then other countries would prevent Canadians from investing there. That would make it impossible for Canadian companies that want to expand into other countries because they must become a foreign investor in those countries. Canada is a trading nation that depends on exports to maintain its standard of living. Our companies need to be able to invest abroad to become large enough to compete on the world scale.

[Yaro]

This is typical NDP 'if you are rich you must be evil' thinking. Such a blanket rule would end up hurting the middle class much more than the wealthy because the middle class could not afford to move assets to foreign tax havens.

First off this statement is so stupid and betrays such an obvious lack of understanding that I wouldn't even bother to comment if I didn't want to point out that I am not an NDPer.

1) Parents of young children die in an accident without adequate life insurance but they have a few 100 thousand in assets. The children certainly deserve these assets.

You assume that my 30 second spiel is the complete unabridged version of what I am saying? ok...

And technically no, those children don't "deserve" those assets, what they deserve is the opportunity to grow up in a fair and just society that provides them the equal opportunity to EARN assets of there own.

2) A farmer (or any other small businessman) wants his child to take over the family business. The business is the only asset so the child cannot afford to 'buy' the farm from the govt on death

Once again I reiterate that the 30 second byte that I put up before was hardly the complete idea of heavy death taxes.

In this situation the child would have to do what anyone else would have to do in this circumstance (buy the farm on credit and actually EARN the asset).

If Canada prevented foreign investment then other countries would prevent Canadians from investing there. That would make it impossible for Canadian companies that want to expand into other countries must become a foreign investor in those countries. Canada is a trading nation that depends on exports to maintain its standard of living. Our companies need to be able to invest abroad to become large enough to compete on the world scale.

Canada is what we have made it, we have the highest resource valuation per capita in the world. Foreign investment has done little but create an economy that is a leaf in the wind to the US. We could just have easily gone the other way with internalized manufacturing and consumption and be just as wealthy.

I would also suggest that what is good for our companies isn't really relevant unless what is good for them is aligned with what is good for Canada as a whole which in the case of foreign investment is pretty much never the case.

In the end its interesting to note that a man who has argued against a sense of entitlment for the poor is apparently so in strongly opposed to removing immoral entitlements for the wealthy.

[BHS]

Yaro:

I gather from your last post that you don't vote NDP because they're a little too far to the right for you. Good luck with ever seeing your views realized.

As to your last sentence, the word entitlement implies privilege. Keeping your money or giving it to your children isn't a privilege, at least not until you get into the PMO. It's a right, and it's a cornerstone of the capitalist system.

[Yaro]

As to your last sentence, the word entitlement implies privilege. Keeping your money or giving it to your children isn't a privilege, at least not until you get into the PMO. It's a right, and it's a cornerstone of the capitalist system.

Keeping your money is not a privilege, entitlement, the idea that you are owed something you didn't earn is most definitely not a cornerstone of the capitalist system, in fact most of the great capitalist thinkers, at one time or another, have written of the dangers of generational wealth.

[Riverwind]

And technically no, those children don't "deserve" those assets, what they deserve is the opportunity to grow up in a fair and just society that provides them the equal opportunity to EARN assets of there own.

So those children are entitled to access to resources that they did not 'earn' up until the moment their parents die? To be logically consistent you would have to make it illegal for parents to give any money to children unless they earn it. Have you checked if MacDonalds would consider hiring 5 year olds?

In this situation the child would have to do what anyone else would have to do in this circumstance (buy the farm on credit and actually EARN the asset).

What if the child worked for for minimal compensation for many years to build the a value of an asset? Why should that child be required to pay the government to get back an asset that would have had no value if that child had not poured blood, sweat and tears in to it?

Canada is what we have made it, we have the highest resource valuation per capita in the world. Foreign investment has done little but create an economy that is a leaf in the wind to the US. We could just have easily gone the other way with internalized manufacturing and consumption and be just as wealthy.

Every company I have worked for since I graduated from school makes it money selling services to people outside Canada because the market inside Canada is too small to make it worthwhile. The ability to raise capital outside the country was critical to the success of these companies. These companies employ hundreds people in Canada today and there are many other similar companies that I did not personally work for. In other words, you don't know what you are talking about when you say all 'foreign investment is bad'

[Renegade]

Even if I couldn't give away my money, with a 100% death tax, wouldn't it make much more economic sense for me to spend it all before I die, and leave nothing for the govenment to tax?

Absolutely, thus increasing the liquidity of the market, reduceing the generational debt load and a whole basket of other good side effects. That is entirely besides the fact that you earned it, damnit you should be the one to enjoy it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yaro, so assuming that everyone is just as logical as me and spends all their money before dying, how is it that the govenment captures any tax dollars to operate?

[for_liberty]

So really with a 100% death tax the government is forcing you to spend it all or they will take it away from you. It doesn't matter that you want to hold onto it untill your death and then transfer it to whom ever you like. Wow what a great system. I work my whole life and the government taxes me and then tells me what to do with my money. Is this the kind of government people want? A goverment so big and powerfull they do as they please.

[mirror]

Governments do whatever they want in terns of security so why should taxation be any different?

[for_liberty]

And is that what we want? I know I don't.

[mirror]

What do you think governments are? They are the people we have chosen to represent our interests. Government is us. If we don't like our government fortunately we live in a democratic society, and we can turf them out at the next election. It's not perfect but it sure is a lot better than China, isn't it?

[cybercoma]

What do you think governments are? They are the people we have chosen to represent our interests. Government is us. If we don't like our government fortunately we live in a democratic society, and we can turf them out at the next election. It's not perfect but it sure is a lot better than China, isn't it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not if you think you have to wait until the next election. The idea that the government dictates our interests to us between votes is a dangerous proposal at best.

[for_liberty]

What do you think governments are? They are the people we have chosen to represent our interests. Government is us. If we don't like our government fortunately we live in a democratic society, and we can turf them out at the next election. It's not perfect but it sure is a lot better than China, isn't it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not if you think you have to wait until the next election. The idea that the government dictates our interests to us between votes is a dangerous proposal at best.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

thank you

I don't think i could of said it any better.

Why do people thinkit is ok for a majority to rule a minority? Some how it makes them feel good to force me to live how they think everyone should live. It kind of sounds like George Bush.

[cybercoma]

What do you think governments are? They are the people we have chosen to represent our interests. Government is us. If we don't like our government fortunately we live in a democratic society, and we can turf them out at the next election. It's not perfect but it sure is a lot better than China, isn't it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not if you think you have to wait until the next election. The idea that the government dictates our interests to us between votes is a dangerous proposal at best.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

thank you

I don't think i could of said it any better.

Why do people thinkit is ok for a majority to rule a minority? Some how it makes them feel good to force me to live how they think everyone should live. It kind of sounds like George Bush.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Liberals see it as "justifiable force".

[for_liberty]

What do you think governments are? They are the people we have chosen to represent our interests. Government is us. If we don't like our government fortunately we live in a democratic society, and we can turf them out at the next election. It's not perfect but it sure is a lot better than China, isn't it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not if you think you have to wait until the next election. The idea that the government dictates our interests to us between votes is a dangerous proposal at best.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

thank you

I don't think i could of said it any better.

Why do people thinkit is ok for a majority to rule a minority? Some how it makes them feel good to force me to live how they think everyone should live. It kind of sounds like George Bush.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Liberals see it as "justifiable force".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with you but on the other side conservatives think they are doing gods work.

[cybercoma]

I agree with you but on the other side conservatives think they are doing gods work.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Only the really crappy conservatives.

[for_liberty]

I agree with you but on the other side conservatives think they are doing gods work.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Only the really crappy conservatives.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There seems to be alot of them going around today.

[BHS]

So really with a 100% death tax the government is forcing you to spend it all or they will take it away from you. It doesn't matter that you want to hold onto it untill your death and then transfer it to whom ever you like. Wow what a great system. I work my whole life and the government taxes me and then tells me what to do with my money. Is this the kind of government people want? A goverment so big and powerfull they do as they please.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yaro:

This is what I was talking to, in regard to a "cornerstone of capitalism". The capitalist (free market really, but I take them to be part and parcel) system uses the freedom of choice as an incentive for investors and entrepreneurs to participate in the system. If you know that when all is said and done, the government is going to take the fruits of your labour entirely, then why bother? This disincentive is a major drawback in all socialist schemes.