Half of Canada contributes nothing to its tax base.

[QuebecOverCanada]

Just now, Argus said:

I am a firm believer in economic motivation. If you have an economic motivation to vote for parties which believe in BIG government with lots of services then you are likely to do so. Thus the more wealth the government transfers from higher earners, the lower it makes taxes on lower earners, the more people are exempt from carrying any of the fiscal burden of supporting the state, the more likelihood that "'big government" parties will be in power.

Mulcair and Harper vowed to balance the budget. Trudeau promised to spend, spend spend! Trudeau won the election easily. Where was he most successful? Arguably the Atlantic provinces. He swept every seat by promising even more generous welfare (pogey) and government programs.

The more people removed from the group called "taxpayers" the more people will vote for people like Trudeau. It's inevitable, and in their own interests, after all.

What kinds of services do you wish to cut instead of attacking the big government with 30 ministers federally and the same number provincially?

Do you know Switzerland only has 6 ministers and have loads more services and their population is more than twice as rich as us?

[Argus]

3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

You know, when the vaunted Canadian Corps returned home from World War One, there weren't a lot of people at the station to meet them, there was no victory parade, and the Commander of the Corps, General Currie, the Canadian media called him a butcher,  so again, "yay Vimy, now we're a nation!", no, that was not the vibe, it's a myth, the government makes this shit up.

That is about as completely irrelevant to this topic as I can imagine other than talking about life on Mars or something.

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

That is about as completely irrelevant to this topic as I can imagine other than talking about life on Mars or something.

Oh sorry, I got the Liberal Party of Canada cross sniping me in multiple threads, so I posted wrong thread.

[Argus]

4 minutes ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

You do realize there are people who can NOT for obvious reasons pay taxes.

What did I just say in the first sentence?

4 minutes ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

They have no asset, they have to stay at home for taking care of loved ones, they are sick, they have reached an age to which they can't work anymore.

I think we need to examine just why we have such low taxes for lower income earners. I'm not talking about the poor. As the column pointed out, even making $52,000 doesn't really guarantee you're paying anything. As far as I'm concerned if the state of your finances allows you to buy all the consumer goodies then you're not poor and ought to be contributing something.

I know what being poor is. When I was poor I couldn't afford any of that crap.

The last election, Trudeau won by offering to tax me more heavily to cut the taxes of people making up to $90,000 a  year. What exactly is the point of that other than appealing to the larger demographic? Is this an example of tax fairness? It seemed and seems to me this was merely a case of venal, serf-serving politicians offering to legally steal more money from higher income earners and give it to 'the middle class'.

4 minutes ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

And of course the retirees, the sick and handicapped are going to vote for those who will help with their condition. The problem is not the fact that these people don't pay any taxes, is that there are two levels of governments who steal our money like you steal a candy from a baby. The fact that you blame the poor for not taking part of the racket is beyond uncalled for I should say.

The fact you don't put together the thought that voters who aren't contributing will be delighted to vote for more services, and for governments with big cabinets who 'steal our money like you steal candy from a baby' is frankly astonishing. It isn't just the sick and handicapped and dirt poor. It is half the population or more eager for governments which will steal money and give it to them unearned.

[Argus]

10 minutes ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

What kinds of services do you wish to cut instead of attacking the big government with 30 ministers federally and the same number provincially?

Do you know Switzerland only has 6 ministers and have loads more services and their population is more than twice as rich as us?

Why would you imagine I don't want to cut the number of ministers? Those ministers are there for largely one reason - to appeal to various voter blocks. There are whole departments and agencies which don't need to exist but were created in order to win votes from specific identity groups.

In order to cut you need to set priorities. You set what the federal government NEEDS to do, and then pay for that - fully funded - 100%. Then you decide how much money you can afford to spend on the things which are merely nice to have. The problem with this is that half the country doesn't give a shit how much money we borrow and spend or how many ministers there are because they're not paying for any of it and benefit from some of those services and programs.

 

[Centerpiece]

15 hours ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

Look, you start this thread with the title 'Half of Canada contributes nothing to its tax base', which means your whole argument is going to be about that, and you offered little to no solution in your OP for that regard, so go on.

Interesting. How about using the topic information to just acknowledge that our taxation system is very "progressive" with the top earners providing most of the tax revenue? We shouldn't be looking to load up our taxes on the bottom half - nor should we kill the goose that laid the golden egg by trying to hammer those higher earners even more. There is a tipping point where people start to shield their earnings even more than they do. That's why it's so vitally important to not run deficits unless absolutely necessary. We are living in a fantasy world if we think we can be all things to all people and get somebody to pay for it all. Take Healthcare - the big Elephant that consumes the largest share of revenues. Why on earth have we not yet produced an invoice for everyone at least twice a year - with all the procedures and related costs. That shows everyone that it's not free - and it would help rout out fraud. And yes - I will utter that sacrilegious word - co-payments. Yes - co-payments for those who can afford it......on their tax returns...a percentage of the costs from their invoices to a maximum of some sort....increasing with earnings.

Edited January 11, 2019 by Centerpiece

[Dougie93]

The issue of a lack of shared sacrifice for Canadian Confederation has nothing to do with taxation.  

The issue is that Confederation does not serve the purpose or which it was intended, which was a simple and straightforward military/trade alliance.

Instead the country has been seized by the far left who incite a nonsensical socialist nanny state in the name of Marixst utopianism.

It's dysfunctional, ineffective and counterproductive, crippling Confederations national military/trade. 

As a result, few are really prepared to kill and/or die to uphold and defend it, nor does anybody really want pay for it, other than the aforementioned bolshevists

Hence, failed state fake country.

The only reason it doesn't collapse into civil disorder, is that for some reason the Americans are want to prop up a quasi communist state on their northern border.

What the Americans should do is allow the productive people to the north to emigrate to America where they can reach their full potential to the benefit of America.

Then just leave the rest to squabble about it pointlessly in their self imposed gulag.

Oh, wait, that's already what they do.   NVM.

Edited January 11, 2019 by Dougie93

[Michael Hardner]

17 hours ago, Argus said:

All government services are paid for through taxes, chiefly income taxes.

People earning $100,000 or more paid 51% of all income tax. The top 15% paid two thirds of all income taxes.

And the average Canadian?

Statistics Canada reported that households at the 50th-percentile income level in 2016 received an average market income of $52,300, paid $6,600 in federal and provincial income taxes and received money transfers equal to $7,400.

Nada.

https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/jack-mintz-ottawa-cant-keep-squeezing-crazy-rich-canadians-or-barely-rich-ones

Why not compare that to the golden ages of the past - the 1960s 1950s - that you pine for ?  The fact is that people aren't being paid as much and there's more competition for investment.

Economics is a science and an art, but it's not a moral code...

[Dougie93]

22 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Why not compare that to the golden ages of the past - the 1960s 1950s - that you pine for ? 

The fact is that people aren't being paid as much. . .

 

Provably false. Observe;

Per capita GDP income in Canada in 1950 was roughly $2000.00, inflation adjusted that would be a per capita GDP income of roughly $20,000 in 2019

The actual GDP income in Canada in 2019 is roughly $50,000

Ergo, Canadians are being paid two and half times more now than they were in the 1950's in real terms, real terms being adjusted for inflation.

 

Edited January 11, 2019 by Dougie93

[cannuck]

First of all, it isn't 1/2 but far, far fewer people than that actually contribute to Canada with income tax.

Half of the population is too old, too young, too infirm to pay any income tax.  When you subtract the HUGE number of employees of Federal, Provincial, Municipal government, and those living on reserves even employed (which usually means by the band), THAT adds a significant number of people to the list.  Yes, some of these may pay income tax, but since we pay them, it is not new money, just our same tax dollar rolling around in a useless, wasteful circle.  I doubt that leaves 1/4 of the population actually paying the bills.

The real issue is what are you taxing?

EVERYONE pays the goddamnsalestax...er goods and services tax, so the idea that only top income earners pay anything out of pocket (although that money once again is mostly the same tax dollar recirculated) but to some extent, virtually every conscious and non-incarcerated citizen feels a bit of consumption sting in their pocket.

What we do NOT understand or do is realize the difference between taxing wealth that has been created vs. wealth that is merely being redistributed.  A government salary is redistributed wealth.  Profit from ANY kind of speculative gain (be it real estate, equities, derivatives, etc.) is no different from a welfare cheque - it creates zero wealth - and the increase in money supply is inflationary - thus costing EVERYONE who pays tax or not by weakening currency.

Instead of taxing income "progressively", we should give a basic personal exemption to everyone that keeps income tax OFF of the lowest stratum (I am just guessing something around $30k today) needed to survive.   After that, stop penalizing success in PRODUCTIVE work or any other salary by increasing rates "progressively".

One seldom discussed or understood is to stop inflating the shit out of everything by giving a free ride on the taxpayer to speculative activity (which also, as it happens is what drives capital into non-productive, speculative wealth re-distribution).  Simplest way to end that nonsense is tax capital gains 99% day one, 95% year one, decreasing 5% annually until at the nominal flat tax rate.  Bay Street free ride is a hell of a lot bigger than social services skim off of the top.

You then kill a lot of birds with one stone.  The huge differential in cost of big city living vs. rural or small town is gone, or at least greatly reduced.  When have empty lots in Hongcouver going for over a mil and shacks in Hogtown damn near the same, how are people who are trying to survive supposed to afford housing?  Stop putting all of the loose money into speculators hands for flipping property, doing M&A slight of hand or winning big at the derivative casino table.  Yeah, those Bay Street maverns actually contribute next to nothing to the country - as the few taxes they pay on speculative gain come right out of the common pocket of every citizen.

Biggest one of all: stop deficit spending.  While we can throw a bandaid on incredible stupidity and ineptitude with government debt, the day of reckoning is being passed onto future generations in the biggest round of theft in the history of the world.   Make governments accountable for their BS ideas by putting the  bill on the table while they are still in office to answer to the taxpayer.

Of course, the last requirement is to scale government back to providing services, not allowing it to pick economic winners and losers - and stop the rule-bys-special-interest function from dispensing privilege to screw the taxpayer and economy to death.

Edited January 11, 2019 by cannuck

[Dougie93]

As there is little prospect of achieving significantly less taxation within the status quo structure of Canadian Confederation wherein the Liberal Party of Canada is able to asymmetrically rule as a quasi-benign effective dictatorship, which is rather propped up by the fundamentally Marxist academic and media Eastern Elites, the next best option is simply to feed the Liberals rope and encourage them to increase taxes until such time at market forces incite a tax revolt against them, and by way establish an entrenched populist anti-tax movement imperiling their dictatorship and associated failed state zombie Confederation.

[turningrite]

4 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

Provably false. Observe;

Per capita GDP income in Canada in 1950 was roughly $2000.00, inflation adjusted that would be a per capita GDP income of roughly $20,000 in 2019

The actual GDP income in Canada in 2019 is roughly $50,000

Ergo, Canadians are being paid two and half times more now than they were in the 1950's in real terms, real terms being adjusted for inflation.

 

The problem here is that most of the gains were made in the first couple decades (i.e. 1950s and 1960s) following 1950. Further, per capita GDP isn't always a wholly accurate measure to assess living standards. It's well-documented that recent GDP gains have primarily benefited corporate corporate bottom lines and the wallets of the wealthiest. Average wages illustrate the degree to which incomes have stagnated in recent decades, as indicated by Stats Can data discussed in the link below.

https://globalnews.ca/news/3531614/average-hourly-wage-canada-stagnant/

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, turningrite said:

The problem here is that most of the gains were made in the first couple decades (i.e. 1950s and 1960s) following 1950. Further, per capita GDP isn't always a wholly accurate measure to assess living standards. It's well-documented that recent GDP gains have primarily benefited corporate corporate bottom lines and the wallets of the wealthiest. Average wages illustrate the degree to which incomes have stagnated in recent decades, as indicated by Stats Can data discussed in the link below.

https://globalnews.ca/news/3531614/average-hourly-wage-canada-stagnant/

That is a problem, but the problem I would submit is related to the onset of Information Age revolution supplanting the Industrial Age, which was the source of widespread industrial and institutional employment within the Western North Atlantic Security Zone of the American Hegemonic order, and so is not a problem which Canada can address, as it is market forces in action, on a global epoch scale.

[Argus]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Why not compare that to the golden ages of the past - the 1960s 1950s - that you pine for ?  The fact is that people aren't being paid as much and there's more competition for investment.

Economics is a science and an art, but it's not a moral code...

But Canada's progressive tax rate and redistributive taxation system IS a moral code and not based on economics at all. It's based on the morality that says we don't want people to be too poor, that we want them to be able to afford certain things, and so we will take money away from those who have money and give it to others. Trying to divorce this from morality is silly.

It's also unsustainable given that it creates the demand for more and more services and more and more redistribution. The more people who are removed from the tax rolls and become net recipients of government funds, the more people will be voting for parties which provide more of the same.

PS. There are elements of the 50s/60s I would appreciate, like a sense of self-reliance and responsibility among people, the feeling that it's not up to government to solve all your problems, and a  fundamental belief in the stern application of law and order, but I do not long for an era of stifling morality imposed on everyone.

Edited January 11, 2019 by Argus

[Argus]

1 hour ago, cannuck said:

One seldom discussed or understood is to stop inflating the shit out of everything by giving a free ride on the taxpayer to speculative activity (which also, as it happens is what drives capital into non-productive, speculative wealth re-distribution).  Simplest way to end that nonsense is tax capital gains 99% day one, 95% year one, decreasing 5% annually until at the nominal flat tax rate.  Bay Street free ride is a hell of a lot bigger than social services skim off of the top.

You then kill a lot of birds with one stone. 

Yes, and drive hundreds of billions of investment dollars out of Canada. People will move their money out of Canadian financial institutioins and into nice numbered accounts somewhere, then invest from there and tell the government nothing.

Edited January 11, 2019 by Argus

[turningrite]

2 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

That is a problem, but the problem I would submit is related to the onset of Information Age revolution supplanting the Industrial Age, which was the source of widespread industrial and institutional employment within the Western North Atlantic Security Zone of the American Hegemonic order, and so is not a problem which Canada can address, as it is market forces in action, on a global epoch scale.

That's far too simplistic an explanation. Many developed countries that have faced the same technological and economic environment Canada has are faring much better than are we. One of our biggest mistakes was to deprioritize productivity growth, mainly by suppressing wages. And another was protecting and promoting some sectors and interests at the expense of others, often by tolerating and even encouraging the growth and entrenchment of oligopolies and near-monopolies. Canada's standard of living was once in the post-WWII era ranked as high as 2nd in the world, after the U.S., but I believe is now ranked somewhere between 28th and 34th depending on the analytical metrics applied. I recently read an analysis that concluded that if our productivity growth had matched the American level over the past generation, our per capita GDP would be roughly 15 to 20 percent higher than is the case today. 

As a country, we're not merely a victim of circumstances over which we've had no control. We've chosen to suppress wages with our large-scale immigration and fairly wide-open foreign worker policies. We've chosen to make it easier for the so-called "gig" economy to displace regular full-time paid employment. I believe the OECD ranks protections afforded temporary and contract workers in Canada as the worst among its member nations. At some point, politicians in this country have to acknowledge accountability for the circumstances they've created and for a system that surely isn't sustainable for much longer. I read a column in today's Toronto Star stating that it's likely the Ontario government will end universal drug coverage for seniors, even though most of these people paid high taxes for years believing they'd have such coverage when they most need it. Rather, only those in the subsidy class are likely to retain coverage. The so-called "safety net" is dead, an outcome our politicians have achieved. Ordinary workers should wonder why they continue to pay taxes in return for increasingly less coverage and protection. We, the ordinary taxpaying citizens of this country, are are for the most part in the same boat as the "yellow vests" these days. We simply haven't organized.

Edited January 11, 2019 by turningrite

[Dougie93]

I make no economic proscription from internet soapbox, merely articulating the market forces at the core of the problem for Canada, as I simply live by adaption to market forces rather than pointlessly swimming against the inexorable tides, I'll just keep on doing that, Canada and its nonsensically silly failed state Confederation be damned.   /shrugs

[cannuck]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Yes, and drive hundreds of billions of investment dollars out of Canada. People will move their money out of Canadian financial institutioins and into nice numbered accounts somewhere, then invest from there and tell the government nothing.

Main street doesn't get funded now.  When you put money in Bay Street or Wall Street's hands, all it is used for is to inflate the value of the underlying equities.  Business needs to be an investment target, not a plaything for financiers.  THIS is why corporate governance has gone to hell - it is not the best business person running things, it is those who will best give the finance community gains without the bother of being a business.   Reality is: we need the US to do the same thing, but after seeing what it is like to run a branch plant economy at the whims of American masters, we really don't need THAT kind of investment at all - as it is seldom an actual investment.

You are exhibiting the kind of cowardice that lets us screw up the entire world of business and simply surrendering it to the world of finance without a fight because we are individually to frigging greedy and useless to actually be productive and too gutless to stand up for what is right.

[cannuck]

3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

I make no economic proscription from internet soapbox, merely articulating the market forces at the core of the problem for Canada, as I simply live by adaption to market forces rather than pointlessly swimming against the inexorable tides, I'll just keep on doing that, Canada and its nonsensically silly failed state Confederation be damned.   /shrugs

economic coward #2.

[Dougie93]

7 minutes ago, cannuck said:

economic coward #2.

How so?

[cannuck]

3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

How so?

Banks/finance are waging all out war on the consumer/taxpayer.  They lost one battle after the 1929 debacle, and should have been wiped out in 2009, but instead they have been rewarded for their treachery instead of being punished.  Not standing up to right that wrong is an extreme lack of courage, sense and conviction.  You (and most of the world) are tilting at procurement and poltical windmills all day long, while the foxes are emptying our chicken coop (intentional pun).

Edited January 11, 2019 by cannuck

[Dougie93]

Just now, cannuck said:

Banks/finance are waging all out war on the consumer/taxpayer.  They lost one battle after the 1929 debacle, and should have been wiped out in 2009, but instead they have been rewarded for their treachery instead of being punished.  Not standing up to right that wrong is an extreme lack of courage, sense and conviction.

I merely said I make no economic proscription, proscription as in; prohibition, to prohibit being me trying to stop you from doing what you want, so how does that amount to cowardice on my part?

Do you not speak the Queen's English?

[cannuck]

3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

I merely said I make no economic proscription, proscription as in; prohibition, to prohibit being me trying to stop you from doing what you want, so how does that amount to cowardice on my part?

Do you not speak the Queen's English?

Merely suggesting you pick the fight that is underlying pretty much everything.  You are concentrating on the tactics but missing the strategy.  The political wrangling is nothing but a diversion.

Edited January 11, 2019 by cannuck

[Dougie93]

7 minutes ago, cannuck said:

Merely suggesting you pick the fight that is underlying pretty much everything.  You are concentrating on the tactics but missing the strategy.

As I said, my strategy is to adapt to market forces in order to profit from them so I can maintain my comfortable lifestyle, and the silly people of the Post National State, the absurd Orwellian contradiction masquerading as a government propped up by the Americans on their northern frontier, can do what they want.

I am for obvious reasons duly hedged for a Canadian economic crisis. 

What is cowardly about that?  I am not afraid, bring on the economic collapse of Canadian Confederation I say, it's of no consequence to me anymore, and the only way to be free of this nonsensical governance, is for it to go bankrupt, doesn't crimp my style, markets are international.

Edited January 11, 2019 by Dougie93

[cannuck]

Canada as a country wil never go bankrupt - it has too much in real value in resource wealth.  The government, on the other hand, will some day reach a point where it is no longer credit worthy as we will not be able to service our debt.  You and I will be worm feed by then, but it is our responsibility to those left behind to right the wrongs that we have allowed to develop.

Edited January 11, 2019 by cannuck