Top 20% of income earners fund majority of Ottawa's income tax revenue: report

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

Well.. if you do not focus on the process then folks pick apart your stuff.

IF anyone's picking apart your stuff on that kind of level in a casual online conversation, refer them to a good psychiatrist.

 

4 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

You could do 999 things perfectly but do not get the 1000th correct... the whole product is garbage.

You  were clearly working for dumb people.  I'm hoping the people you work for now are a little brighter.

Yeash - with the old people's attitudes  we'd have never developed any of our modern sciences or technology.   Mind you, i guess we also woudln't have invented the atom bomb so...  maybe they had a point LOL

[SpankyMcFarland]

19 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Tax shelters and whatnot are the same for the top 20 or 1% or the 80% of Canadians that pay taxes.

Your obsession with the tax rate and who pays what and why is unfounded and in your imagination. We all pay and we all can hide it the same way.

 

Tax shelters are not the same for everybody. The boutique overseas products offered by the likes of KPMG are only a realistic option for the seriously asset rich - high net worth individuals. Letting these people away with their wrongdoing and crimes destabilizes the whole system and encourages everybody to cheat. 

Edited August 5, 2023 by SpankyMcFarland

[CdnFox]

30 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Tax shelters are not the same for everybody. The boutique overseas products offered by the likes of KPMG are only a realistic option for the seriously asset rich - high net worth individuals.

That is not accurate.  They are available easily to anyone.  But - there's no value to them UNLESS you earn a LOT of money.

One of the reasons for that is we tax the hell out of people who earn a lot of money. And the more we tax, the more it become worth it to go through the bother of avoiding tax.

There's absolutely nothing to stop some guy earning 40 grand a year form taking advantage of those 'boutique' tax opportunities but there would be no point.  But if we're looking at a guy who earns 70 k  vs a guy who earns 700 k,  even with all the tax breaks in the world the guy who makes 70 k has more ability to shelter a larger percent of his income and pay a lower aggregate tax rate

 

[Moonbox]

21 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

So what??? It is your argument and points and I am trying to understand you and your need to defend it, that is what.

So what if 20% of earners pay 80% of the taxes?  What's your argument here?  

21 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

What is the "primary rationale"? That we pay taxes or that the more you earn the more tax you pay? We  know this and so does the government and that is why there are taxation groups.

The rationale for the tax brackets (taxation groups, as you call them) is based on an ability to pay them - disposable income.  

21 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

I almost allways disagree with CdnFox but, you , on the other hand and in this case, have an indefensible argument and with that in mind, I do agree with him.

Whether or not you usually disagree with him, you were projecting just like him.  

Regardless, it's not clear what your argument is, and it doesn't appear you understand mine.  ?‍♂️

Edited August 5, 2023 by Moonbox

[ExFlyer]

8 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

So what if 20% of earners pay 80% of the taxes?  What's your argument here?  

The rationale for the tax brackets (taxation groups, as you call them) is based on an ability to pay them - disposable income.  

Whether or not you usually disagree with him, you were projecting just like him.  

Regardless, it's not clear what your argument is, and it doesn't appear you understand mine.  ?‍♂️

I hope you are aware that taxes are based on total income? Not "disposable" income?

I am not "projecting" anything, I am stating facts. There are 5 tax brackets. The 20% top  income tax payers pay more than 80% of all income taxes and all taxpayers can take advantage of all "loopholes".

It appears no one else understands your argument either LOL

[Moonbox]

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

I hope you are aware that taxes are based on total income? Not "disposable" income?

Yes, but that doesn't inform us on the rationale for what numbers they set the rates at, does it?  

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

I am not "projecting" anything, I am stating facts. There are 5 tax brackets. The 20% top  income tax payers pay more than 80% of all income taxes and all taxpayers can take advantage of all "loopholes".

You were talking about my obsession earlier.  ?

Your facts tell us...what, exactly?  What's your point?   Where are you going with this?  That the top 20% pay 80% of our taxes isn't being disputed.  It wasn't disputed the last time the National Post dredged it up (it's a semi-annual article for them, it seems).  

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

It appears no one else understands your argument either LOL

My argument is that focusing on the top 20% is arbitrary and amounts to smoke and mirrors.  The average dude squeaking into the top 20%, or even the top 10%, isn't responsible for the lion's share of tax revenue.  It's the folk at the very top.  That's how the revenue is actually broken down.  

[ExFlyer]

2 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Yes, but that doesn't inform us on the rationale for what numbers they set the rates at, does it?  

You were talking about my obsession earlier.  ?

Your facts tell us...what, exactly?  What's your point?   Where are you going with this?  That the top 20% pay 80% of our taxes isn't being disputed.  It wasn't disputed the last time the National Post dredged it up (it's a semi-annual article for them, it seems).  

My argument is that focusing on the top 20% is arbitrary and amounts to smoke and mirrors.  The average dude squeaking into the top 20%, or even the top 10%, isn't responsible for the lion's share of tax revenue.  It's the folk at the very top.  That's how the revenue is actually broken down.  

Holy cow dude!!!

The tax rate is what it is. No one has to explain it to you LOL

My facts are valid. What is it about the facts you don't like? That it is not on your wheelhouse??

Yeah, your obsession. With what? With the fact the top 20% of taxpayers pay more than the other 80% combined? You don't like it? You want the remaining 80% to pay more of their share??

Smoke and mirrors? That the top 20% pay more than the other 80% combined is smoke and mirrors? No Moonie, it is a fact. Are you saying that "squeaking into the top 20%" should not pay the highest rate?

 

 

 

[Moonbox]

5 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Holy cow dude!!!

The tax rate is what it is. No one has to explain it to you LOL

You're explaining truisms.  Holy cow indeed.  ?

5 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

My facts are valid. What is it about the facts you don't like? That it is not on your wheelhouse??

The sky is blue.  Also a fact.  Where are you going with it?  

5 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Smoke and mirrors? That the top 20% pay more than the other 80% combined is smoke and mirrors? No Moonie, it is a fact. Are you saying that "squeaking into the top 20%" should not pay the highest rate?

They don't pay the highest rate, or even come close to it.  I'm not suggesting they should either. 

I'm saying that it's weird to focus on the top 20% when the skew is far more pronounced (and interesting) as you drill-down further up the income ladder, with the top 10% paying over half, or the top 5% paying 40%, or the top 1% paying 21%.  

 

[ExFlyer]

9 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

You're explaining truisms.  Holy cow indeed.  ?

The sky is blue.  Also a fact.  Where are you going with it?  

They don't pay the highest rate, or even come close to it.  I'm not suggesting they should either. 

I'm saying that it's weird to focus on the top 20% when the skew is far more pronounced (and interesting) as you drill-down further up the income ladder, with the top 10% paying over half, or the top 5% paying 40%, or the top 1% paying 21%.  

 

Yup Truism - a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new or interesting.

Something which you keep arguing with LOL

Interest rate??

There is no focus, it was a statement of fact among a number of factual statements. You seem to not like it for some bizarre reason.

Fact is fact, Truism is the truth

[Moonbox]

43 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

There is no focus, it was a statement of fact among a number of factual statements. You seem to not like it for some bizarre reason.

I think it's fairly useless information.  Feel free to tell us why it's not....?

[ExFlyer]

25 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

I think it's fairly useless information.  Feel free to tell us why it's not....?

Nope. It is what it is and if you don't like it, so sad.

No sense talking to you anymore.

Edited August 5, 2023 by ExFlyer

[Moonbox]

Fox has rubbed off on you, lol.  Who said anything about liking or disliking the data?  ?

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

I think it's fairly useless information.  Feel free to tell us why it's not....?

You're being deliberately obtuse.

Clearly if a very small group is paying the vast majority of the taxes, they are already paying their 'fair share'.  "Fair"  by most moral codes would be if everyone pays the same percent.  The rich would still pay more actual cash but they earn more so it's fair.  instead - it's NOT fair to them already. 

If you're going to make the claim that despite paying almost all the taxes they somehow still aren't paying their fair share then its up to YOU to demonstrate why that's the case.

As it is, the number is entirely relevant as it demonstrates clearly that by any reasonable standard the wealthy already pay more than their fair share in taxes.

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

Fox has rubbed off on you, lol.  Who said anything about liking or disliking the data?  ?

I know you live in fear of me and being made a fool of, but do you really need to insist that i live rent free in your head like that?

And you very clearly have a problem with the data and what it suggests.

[Moonbox]

52 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

As it is, the number is entirely relevant as it demonstrates clearly that by any reasonable standard the wealthy already pay more than their fair share in taxes.

The numbers presented would be better demonstrated by the fact that the top 5% are paying 40% of the country's taxes, or the top 1% are paying over 20%.  

56 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

"Fair"  by most moral codes would be if everyone pays the same percent. 

and yet almost every developed economy in the world uses a progressive tax system, so evidently that's not the case.  

52 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I know you live in fear of me and being made a fool of, but do you really need to insist that i live rent free in your head like that?

Hey, I just couldn't help but notice the irony.  

[SpankyMcFarland]

10 hours ago, CdnFox said:

That is not accurate.  They are available easily to anyone.  But - there's no value to them UNLESS you earn a LOT of money.

One of the reasons for that is we tax the hell out of people who earn a lot of money. And the more we tax, the more it become worth it to go through the bother of avoiding tax.

There's absolutely nothing to stop some guy earning 40 grand a year form taking advantage of those 'boutique' tax opportunities but there would be no point.  But if we're looking at a guy who earns 70 k  vs a guy who earns 700 k,  even with all the tax breaks in the world the guy who makes 70 k has more ability to shelter a larger percent of his income and pay a lower aggregate tax rate

 

Wait a second, you’re saying they’re available to everybody….but most people wouldn’t make a profit on them? That’s a rather lawyerly way of saying the same thing I said. They only make sense for a tiny segment of the population and should not be available to anybody. The sort of vehicles I referenced bring the whole tax system into disrepute. 
 

Something else that should not be allowed - accounting firms recruiting senior CRA officials. The potential for corruption should be obvious to any sentient human here. 

Edited August 6, 2023 by SpankyMcFarland

[CdnFox]

21 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

The numbers presented would be better demonstrated by the fact that the top 5% are paying 40% of the country's taxes, or the top 1% are paying over 20%.  

No it wouldn't.  People look at those people as the uber-elites.  These numbers demonstrate that even if you include someone who earns a quarter million a year - not billions - then they STILL pay almost all of the taxes.  80 percent.

22 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

and yet almost every developed economy in the world uses a progressive tax system, so evidently that's not the case.  

It is the case entirely. First off as you're aware may offer enough ways to avoid taxes that it brings it back closer to fairness.  There was a time when the us taxes on the rich were insane - close to 90 percent as i recall.  But there were so many tax breaks nobody paid anything like that.

And secondly -  The fact an unfairness is commonly accepted doesn't make it fair. It just makes it tolerated. For many many years most countries had laws about gays.  Didn't make the laws fair.  Women coudln't vote in many countries.  Wasn't fair.

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

Hey, I just couldn't help but notice the irony.  

First off you're misusing the word "irony" and secondly the only thing that's similar there is how you cry when you're wrong  

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Quote

Wait a second, you’re saying they’re available to everybody….but most people wouldn’t make a profit on them?

 

Well i don't think we use the word 'profit' when talking about tax savings   But it would be accurate to say they don't derrive enough of a benefit to bother.

 

Quote

That’s a rather lawyerly way of saying the same thing I said.

No, it's very different.

Quote

They only make sense for a tiny segment of the population and should not be available to anybody. The sort of vehicles I referenced bring the whole tax system into disrepute. 

Well... that might be the case or at least you could make that argument that some tax breaks shoudln't be there for anyone,  but if you wanted to eliminate them then you'd have to lower the taxes on the rich so they were paying the same amount as they do now, one way or another.  Eliminating them without adjustment would represent a rate increase for the very wealthy and they're already paying 80 percent of the tax revenues.
 

Quote

Something else that should not be allowed - accounting firms recruiting senior CRA officials. The potential for corruption should be obvious to any sentient human here. 

Everyone has the right to do what they can to avoid (not evade) taxes. And if that means hirnig a pro then so be it.

If you want to eliminate all the bullcrap then you go with a flat tax system which is more fair and simple - everyone pays 20 percent of everything they earn, no loopholes.

But people don't want to do that.  So - we git what we git and don't have a fit   And the advantage should go to the taxpayer.

Edited August 6, 2023 by CdnFox

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Something else that should not be allowed - accounting firms recruiting senior CRA officials. The potential for corruption should be obvious to any sentient human here. 

Yep. We saw the same revolving door between the biggest wealthiest fishing interests and DFO. Thousands lost their livelihoods while billionaires like Galen Weston and Jimmy Pattison wound up controlling nearly half the quota.

There appears to be an unhealthy fear in Canada that not allowing the biggest wealthiest interests to mingle and get intimate with our senior government officials would only hurt us - maybe they think it would make us less competitive and reduce what's trickling down to us.

 

[Moonbox]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

No it wouldn't.  People look at those people as the uber-elites.  These numbers demonstrate that even if you include someone who earns a quarter million a year - not billions - then they STILL pay almost all of the taxes.  80 percent.

Congratulations.  You accidentally stumbled into an important point.  Nobody is going to shed  a tear for the burden of the uber-elites, as you call them, so although they're the ones doing most of the heavy lifting, let's include all of the teachers and middle-managers etc and make the tent look bigger.  

$250,000 is the 1%, btw.  

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

And secondly -  The fact an unfairness is commonly accepted doesn't make it fair. It just makes it tolerated. For many many years most countries had laws about gays.  Didn't make the laws fair.  Women coudln't vote in many countries.  Wasn't fair.

Lots of things are unfair, but it's very often a matter of perspective.  

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

First off you're misusing the word "irony" and secondly the only thing that's similar there is how you cry when you're wrong  

Only thing that's a constant with you is how automatically you'll project your fragility on others as soon as anyone disagrees with you.  "You're crying!  You are!  Yes you are!"  ?

[CdnFox]

26 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Congratulations.  You accidentally stumbled into an important point.

Nope.  No stumbling and not an important point.  It was obvious you wanted to try to make it a point , that's why you claimed that it would "better" represent the issue.  But it isn't. 

Sigh. Back to your old game of trying to find some minute detail to harp on when you realize you've lost the original point.

Quote

Lots of things are unfair, but it's very often a matter of perspective.  

Well that's a stupid thing to say.  If it's a matter of perspective then NOTHING is unfair and EVERYTHING is - depending on your perspective, so you can't say lots of things are unfair. You could only say that all things are both fair and unfair depending on the observer.  Very shrodinger of you

At any rate the perspective in question is traditional values in north america, and traditionally everyone being treated equally is what is perceived as fair.

26 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Only thing that's a constant with you is how automatically you'll project your fragility on others as soon as anyone disagrees with you.

LOL -  pointing out  your hissy fits AFTER you lose a discussion is not projecting anything   Although i do note the lefties LOVE the term projecting 

Sorry kiddo. Your faults are your own and your mental insecurities are not my doing.   You'll have to find something else to blame  

Edited August 6, 2023 by CdnFox

[Moonbox]

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Well that's a stupid thing to say.  If it's a matter of perspective then NOTHING is unfair and EVERYTHING is - depending on your perspective, so you can't say lots of things are unfair. You could only say that all things are both fair and unfair depending on the observer.  Very shrodinger of you

No, but utterly lacking in self-awareness as you are, it's unsurprising that you'd say questions of perspective on subjective topics like fairness is "stupid".  

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

LOL -  pointing out  your hissy fits AFTER you lose a discussion is not projecting anything   Although i do note the lefties LOVE the term projecting 

  

There's that frightening lack of self-awareness again.  ?

[CdnFox]

31 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

No, but utterly lacking in self-awareness as you are, it's unsurprising that you'd say questions of perspective on subjective topics like fairness is "stupid".  

Yes, it was a stupid thing to say. Not because of the question of perspective, but rather for the reason i specifically noted.

Did you not understand that point? Did you need me to explain it to you more slowly?

31 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

There's that frightening lack of self-awareness again.  

ROFLMAO !!!!  No,  i said i point out that you have a hissy fit after you lose.   I didn't say i needed to point out you lost, it's obvious you know you lost LOLOL

Awww poor little guy    You just can't get ANYTHING right today can you? 

 

So i have to ask - do you just keep a bunch of things i say downloaded to your computer on the off chance you'll need them to try to deflect in a discussion? Or did you actually take the time to search and search for SOMETHING i said that might be close enough that people wouldn't notice it was wrong and finally give up and go with that?I'm trying to figure out which would be more pathetic.   LOL -  and you wonder why people claim you're obsessed?

Edited August 6, 2023 by CdnFox

[CdnFox]

 

31 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

No, but utterly lacking in self-awareness as you are, it's unsurprising that you'd say questions of perspective on subjective topics like fairness is "stupi

 

Oh - and I know you HATE this because it's really just rubbing your nose in your mistakes, but hopefully now you can see that the fact that 80 percent of all taxes are paid by 20 percent of the people shows nicely that the rich already pay more than their fair share by any reasonable metric.  I assume you have come to the same conclusion given your rather desperate attempts to try to change the subject.

Sorry that didnt' work out for ya. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Everyone has the right to do what they can to avoid (not evade) taxes. And if that means hirnig a pro then so be it.

If you want to eliminate all the bullcrap then you go with a flat tax system which is more fair and simple - everyone pays 20 percent of everything they earn, no loopholes.

But people don't want to do that.  So - we git what we git and don't have a fit   And the advantage should go to the taxpayer.

Does that address what I stated about CRA officials joining accounting firms? The story seems to have gone quiet for years now so I don’t know if it is still happening. Of course, it shouldn’t be allowed. Gamekeepers should not become poachers. 

No serious politician in Canada is advocating a flat tax. It’s a complete non-starter and in no way a solution to the problem. 

Edited August 6, 2023 by SpankyMcFarland

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Does that address what I stated about CRA officials joining accounting firms?

Sure.  A flat tax eliminates the value of a tax expert from the cra,

The rest of it basically said if they can find a CRA expert who can help them save money because he used to work there and knows the system then that's something they should be able to do. As long as that person doesn't break any laws helping out then it's entirely fair game to do whatever you can to avoid taxes.

Quote

The story seems to have gone quiet for years now so I don’t know if it is still happening. Of course, it shouldn’t be allowed. Gamekeepers should not become poachers. 

I'm sure it does and it absolutely SHOULD be legal.  It's amusing that  you think the person trying to keep their own money they lawfully earned is the 'poacher' here.

Whatever they can do to lawfully avoid taxes they should do.  Don't like it - go with a flat tax.

Quote

No serious politician in Canada is advocating a flat tax. It’s a complete non-starter and in no way a solution to the problem. 

It solves the problem entirely. How much did you make? send 20 percent of that in.  No loopholes, no need for accounting advice, very simple.

And of course nobody's advocating for it - no serious politician thinks there's a problem with people trying to avoid taxes within the law as you've suggested there is.