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

CdnFox · August 4, 2023

45 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

No, they really can't. They don't have access to the expertise nor do they have the disposable income to set themselves up to take advantage of those loopholes.

I dunno - i think i have to agree more with @ExFlyer here. For the MOST part, where it's applicable, most people can take advantage of the tax breaks, often even more than 'rich' people. Most of it doesn't take much expertise, and getting the knowledge is pretty affordable.

For example - RRSP's. Who doesn't know about those. A person making 60 k is going to be able to put a LOT more of of a percentage of their income into rrsp's than a rich person.

Writing off your home office - any tax person can tell you about that. Income vs capital gains - etc etc. Setting up a corp if you're self employed, everyone knows about that and if they don't it's easy to find out.

It's only when you're into the highest tax bracket for LOTS of income that its even worth it looking at some of the other games

And a lot of middle income earners are able to hide some of their income. Pretty easy if you're an electrician to do a side job for a neighbor and pocket the cash. Unless it's substantial the gov't wouldn't even care if they found out, they'd just make you pay the tax on it retro.

So it's not like there aren't a lot of tax breaks for middle income people and it's also not like you need any great expertise to make that work for you. Having someone do your taxes and maybe asking around is probably going to be all the expertise you need.

ExFlyer · August 4, 2023

11 hours ago, Moonbox said:

No, the top 20% is a red herring. The top 1% or 5% even is another story.

No, they really can't. They don't have access to the expertise nor do they have the disposable income to set themselves up to take advantage of those loopholes.

As for what it helps, it helps shore up public finances to make people earning at the top actually pay what they're supposed to in taxes. The amount of bullshit write-offs that we can get away with as self-employed individuals is comical, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Are you trying to say the top 1 to 5% are not in the top 20% group? The top 1 to 5% get the same taxation as all in the top 20. LOL

The fact is though, the loopholes are available for all.

Are you saying the top income earners do not pay what they are supposed to? The entire topic of this thread is that the top 20% earners in Canada pay more tha the remaining 80% put together.... even knowing there are loopholes. Your point is invalid

Edited August 4, 2023 by ExFlyer
spelling

eyeball · August 4, 2023

10 hours ago, CdnFox said:

If there is no visible outcome that you can notice - hard to say that it's a problem.

Said the guy who is convinced it's a problem that Trudeau received a benefit from the Aga Khan.

10 hours ago, CdnFox said:

The fact of the matter is no matter how innocent your agenda or how thoroughly you disclose what you're doing or record meetings etc etc there is no way to prove you didn't have something going on in the background.

Sure but by removing the secrecy you make it that much harder for people with an axe to grind to claim you're lying or hiding something.

As I see it the proliferation of fake news and misinformation can be traced directly to the secrecy in which so much of our governance is conducted. It's getting worse and unless governments are willing to use force they can only survive public mistrust for so long.

Drive it till it breaks? Okay

Edited August 4, 2023 by eyeball

CdnFox · August 4, 2023

55 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Said the guy who is convinced it's a problem that Trudeau received a benefit from the Aga Khan.

Bribing the prime minister is a visible problem Just like the actions on behalf of lavalin to subvert the legal process was a visible problem. Breaking the law is always a problem.

Quote

Sure but by removing the secrecy you make it that much harder for people with an axe to grind to claim you're lying or hiding something.

I get that you'd feel that way but it's simply not true. If anything people will clam you would never have been so "transparent" if you hadn't already set things up to work around it

I mean the conservatives made an honest attempt to create more transparency. That's a true thing. And yet your own comments here mock them for the effort. People are just like that - they will find it no more difficult.

The problem is that we as voters don't tend to reward transparency - and we don't punish parties when it DOES become obvious they did something wrong. We dont' punish them for lies - we don't punish them for corruption, we don't punish them for failing to achieve what they promised.

So they lie, steal, and promise everything knowing they can't deliver.

MOAR transparency isn't going to change that even a tiny bit. If we punish politicians for bad behavior - THAT will change things. But historically the liberals don't and the other parties are gettting very close to the "so why should we bother if they don't" side of things.

impartialobserver · August 4, 2023

17 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Agreed, that was my point indeed. I mean - i suppose it's POSSIBLE that he came and actually stole something from you somehow but in most cases if you earned more you did not take a nickle from my opportunities in donig so - and in fact probably created opportunity for me.

You're not wrong obviously, But it's also true they tend to spend money on investments that provide opportunity for others.

ANd you have to look at the downstream. Gates is a mulit billionare - but in getting there how many microsoft multi-millionares did he make? Thousands for sure. And many who had opportunities to make very very high wages that they probably woudln't have - and so on. So all around him there's this decending hill of weath and opportunity for people that wouldn't have been there if he hadn't gotten that wealthy.

Bottom line is - it's one thing to worry about whether or not people at the bottom or the middle have opportunity - it's not worth worrying about the people at the top and 'punishing' them for their success.

In the short term.. consumption purchases fuel more job growth. It takes time for financial instruments to have that impact. This is why between 60 to 70% of US GDP is tied to Consumption not investment.

Back to the topic, to say that closing the income gap would translate to job growth is quite complex. I am not sure I can articulate it but this is like saying that having parity in a sport leads to higher scoring and therefore higher profits per team. Lots of layered cause and effect and assumptions.

CdnFox · August 4, 2023

1 hour ago, impartialobserver said:

n the short term.. consumption purchases fuel more job growth. It takes time for financial instruments to have that impact. This is why between 60 to 70% of US GDP is tied to Consumption not investment.

Sure, but long term is how you have to view economies. Short term is important but today's investments fuel tomorrow's consumerism.

1 hour ago, impartialobserver said:

Back to the topic, to say that closing the income gap would translate to job growth is quite complex.

I think the very statement is flawed. "closing the income gap" isn't something you do which leads to something else - it's what doing something leads to. If left to it's natural devices a fair market will lead to some being very rich but everyone over all climbing. If the gap lessens then it's a symptom of a problem, not a cure.

The only reason anyone talks about it is that someone wants what someone else has and they don't want to have to bother earning it, they want it given to them because "muh Feels". As long as there's no absolute barriers to personal growth and wealth creation for everyone else then leave the rich alone.

CdnFox · August 4, 2023

21 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Also 'interfering with the rich' now means accepting an invitation to their private island.

Oh look - Michael is defending justin again. Imagine that Tell us all again how you're not a left winger Michael?

The cops said it was a crime. THe ethics comissioner said it was unlawful and unethical.

But - Mikey knows best and no no ... it's perfectly natural for a Prime Minister to recieve an all expense holiday to a private island worth hundreds of thousands of dollars from a paid lobbyist who's lobbying his gov't.

There you go boys - liberal ethics at work

CdnFox · August 4, 2023

23 hours ago, eyeball said:

Either of which should have been stopped cold in their tracks by Harper's Accountability Act.

They were. THe commissioner he set up caught trudeau. The law he put in place tripped teh liberals up from corrupting the justice system.

But. YOU and your kind let them off the hook. You support justin despite this.

And yet you're the first to whine like a batch about 'accountability'. When you refuse to hold justin accountable for what he's done. You defend him here regularly

At the end of the day you don't give a flying fig about accountability.

impartialobserver · August 4, 2023

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I think the very statement is flawed. "closing the income gap" isn't something you do which leads to something else - it's what doing something leads to. If left to it's natural devices a fair market will lead to some being very rich but everyone over all climbing. If the gap lessens then it's a symptom of a problem, not a cure.

Typically, an economist views something like this. The data that you feed in are tied to the independent variables or x1, x2, x3, etc.

Y (result) = Beta(statistical constant) + x1 + x2 + x3 + .....

the process of deciding what is the Y can be quite challenging. In your estimation, the "income gap" is the result. In the view of others on here, the Y is job growth. If you do this purely objectively, you decide to put something on the left (result) versus the right (ingredient) based on statistical tests such as correlation or p-value. If you really want to know.. I could lay it out but for now going to nip it in the bud.

eyeball · August 4, 2023

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Bribing the prime minister is a visible problem Just like the actions on behalf of lavalin to subvert the legal process was a visible problem. Breaking the law is always a problem.

I get that you'd feel that way but it's simply not true. If anything people will clam you would never have been so "transparent" if you hadn't already set things up to work around it

I mean the conservatives made an honest attempt to create more transparency. That's a true thing. And yet your own comments here mock them for the effort. People are just like that - they will find it no more difficult.

The problem is that we as voters don't tend to reward transparency - and we don't punish parties when it DOES become obvious they did something wrong. We dont' punish them for lies - we don't punish them for corruption, we don't punish them for failing to achieve what they promised.

So they lie, steal, and promise everything knowing they can't deliver.

MOAR transparency isn't going to change that even a tiny bit. If we punish politicians for bad behavior - THAT will change things. But historically the liberals don't and the other parties are gettting very close to the "so why should we bother if they don't" side of things.

So by refusing to take measures to prevent corruption one can only conclude you support it.

Notwithstanding national security issues, there's no good reason for not opening up meetings between lobbyists and politicians at all. The only argument against doing so is that voters are either to stupid or distrustful to be trusted.

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

But. YOU and your kind let them off the hook. You support justin despite this.

?

Moonbox · August 4, 2023

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

Are you trying to say the top 1 to 5% are not in the top 20% group? The top 1 to 5% get the same taxation as all in the top 20. LOL

No, I'm saying that talking about the top 20% is misdirection. The folks who squeaked in at the 20th percentile aren't wealthy and if you drill-down further you'd know that the top 10% pay 54% of income tax in Canada, and that this number skews further the higher up you go in the income ladder (something close to 25% of taxes paid by the top 1%). Nobody cries for the 1% however, so that's why the Post writes every year about the tax burden of the upper 1/5th of the population.

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

The fact is though, the loopholes are available for all.

Only in the most technical and literal sense, not in a practical or realistic one.

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

Are you saying the top income earners do not pay what they are supposed to? The entire topic of this thread is that the top 20% earners in Canada pay more tha the remaining 80% put together.... even knowing there are loopholes. Your point is invalid

Yes, I'm saying they don't pay what they should. My point isn't made invalid because the wealthiest people pay the lion's share of taxes. They do so because they have the lion's share of disposable income, and they still have a million ways of paying less than they could. We're an international money laundering haven for similar reasons.

eyeball · August 4, 2023

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

At the end of the day I don't give a flying fig about accountability.

FIFY.

CdnFox · August 4, 2023

1 minute ago, impartialobserver said:

Typically, an economist views something like this. The data that you feed in are tied to the independent variables or x1, x2, x3, etc.

Y (result) = Beta(statistical constant) + x1 + x2 + x3 + .....

the process of deciding what is the Y can be quite challenging. In your estimation, the "income gap" is the result. In the view of others on here, the Y is job growth. If you do this purely objectively, you decide to put something on the left (result) versus the right (ingredient) based on statistical tests such as correlation or p-value. If you really want to know.. I could lay it out but for now going to nip it in the bud.

You seem to be badly missing the point.

Sometimes when people feel they know a topic, they wind up missing the obvious because it's so easy to get wrapped up in the minutia.

That seems to be preventing you from having a reasonable position on the matter.

Regardless of what math you choose to use, in the real world either the income gap is the cause of people's lack of wealth or it isn't.

And in the society we live in today it isn't. It's not that complicated. The fact someone else is rich does not hold you personally back from accumulating wealth. And if you're putting your Y in a place that suggests it is, then there's a problem with you not with the math

CdnFox · August 4, 2023

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

So by refusing to take measures to prevent corruption one can only conclude you support it.

IF it is your job to take measures - as it is for the voters - and you don't do it then yes - you support corruption.

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

I realize i'm a liar and a liberal supporter and dishonest but that doesn't mean i support ALL liberal corruption

Yes it does - and maybe stop faking other people's quotes in your replies. I know you love to fake other people saying things but it's kind of inappropriate as you can see

impartialobserver · August 4, 2023

Just now, CdnFox said:

You seem to be badly missing the point.

Sometimes when people feel they know a topic, they wind up missing the obvious because it's so easy to get wrapped up in the minutia.

That seems to be preventing you from having a reasonable position on the matter.

Regardless of what math you choose to use, in the real world either the income gap is the cause of people's lack of wealth or it isn't.

And in the society we live in today it isn't. It's not that complicated. The fact someone else is rich does not hold you personally back from accumulating wealth. And if you're putting your Y in a place that suggests it is, then there's a problem with you not with the math

the math either proves your claim or it does not.. I am not bored enough to actually gather the data, construct the model, and do the test. We attempted this in grad school and it simply became too onerous. I tend to prefer let the data speak for me on topics such as this where you can quantify all aspects of it. I can have opinions but if the data does not back that up.. which one is wrong?

The lack of a zero sum-game is just an assumption that you build in. If wealth/income was a zero-sum game then you would add it in as independent variable such as x4 or whatever.

If I had to guess whether the income gap is the Y variable or not.. my guess is that the math should prove it to be an independent variable but somewhat weak in correlation. Middle income earners are who buy specialty consumption goods. The production/distribution of consumption goods not directly tied to surviving is where you see the high salary careers.

Nationalist · August 4, 2023

21 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Earnings growth in Canada has also been dominated by the top 20%, with their share of overall income increasing over the last 35 years to every other quintile's detriment.

Regardless, the focus on the top 20% is a distraction. The bottom end of that is nothing impressive, but still oppressively taxed. The upper echelons (the top 5%) account for a wildly disproportionate share of incomes whilst ultimately paying lower effective rates than the poor schmucks "only" earning ~$200,000/year after the tricks they can afford are accounted for.

If you're merely going to raise taxes on the top 20%, you're just going to p*ss people off whilst not accomplishing much. The better approach would be to close tax loopholes and then properly fund CRA (the only government agency that actually brings income in) and ensure that the highest earners are paying reasonables rate in the first place.

None of this matters, however, if we maintain a government that just blows the roof off of spending and is more and more quickly heading us towards a debt spiral.

It feels odd...to completely agree with you. But in this case I agree.

Both parties (of consequence) engage in the same BS. And they do because its in their own best interests. After they "serve", they become part of the $500,000+ earners. They know when they write the tax loopholes, that they're writing them for themselves to use. Its nasty but that's what happens.

I would like to see a "flat tax" schema employed for income tax. I would also like to avoid this debt spiral you speak of. That would be nice...

ExFlyer · August 4, 2023

10 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

No, I'm saying that talking about the top 20% is misdirection. The folks who squeaked in at the 20th percentile aren't wealthy and if you drill-down further you'd know that the top 10% pay 54% of income tax in Canada, and that this number skews further the higher up you go in the income ladder (something close to 25% of taxes paid by the top 1%). Nobody cries for the 1% however, so that's why the Post writes every year about the tax burden of the upper 1/5th of the population.

Only in the most technical and literal sense, not in a practical or realistic one.

Yes, I'm saying they don't pay what they should. My point isn't made invalid because the wealthiest people pay the lion's share of taxes. They do so because they have the lion's share of disposable income, and they still have a million ways of paying less than they could. We're an international money laundering haven for similar reasons.

I am not sure what you are trying to defend. Fact is, the top 20%, # 1 to #20 pay more taxes than the remaining 80% of Canadians combined.

What the top 20 or 15 or 1% make is immaterial. They all pay taxes more than any other taxpayer.

The tax rates are the same for all groups. The more you make, the more you pay.

Taxes are not based on disposable income.

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.

CdnFox · August 4, 2023

22 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

the math either proves your claim or it does not.. I am not bored enough to actually gather the data, construct the model, and do the test.

Then there's not enough data present for the math to be remotely relevant to the discussion

However - the math alone would not prove or disprove it. It would simply give more detail as to what's happening but it wouldn't be a complete picture of this particular issue.

Quote

I can have opinions but if the data does not back that up.. which one is wrong?

Educated opinions based on logic and reason are the start of all our knowledge. It may be some time before the data can prove it, but that's where it starts. We're just proving some of einstein's theoretical ideas in the last year or two here - if you wait for proof before attempting to come up with a prediction you will never get anywhere.

26 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

The lack of a zero sum-game is just an assumption that you build in. If wealth/income was a zero-sum game then you would add it in as independent variable such as x4 or whatever.

Well we know wealth is not a zero sum game. Wealth can be created, there's not a limited supply. Its' not like there's a "wealthonium" mine some where and whomever owns it has all the wealth

So what you really mean is it a zero sum game in our society/country and it's structure and it's pretty easily demonstrable it is not.

28 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

If I had to guess whether the income gap is the Y variable or not.. my guess is that the math should prove it to be an independent variable but somewhat weak in correlation. Middle income earners are who buy specialty consumption goods. The production/distribution of consumption goods not directly tied to surviving is where you see the high salary careers.

Not relevant to the discussion. But sure, why not.

Moonbox · August 4, 2023

19 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

I am not sure what you are trying to defend. Fact is, the top 20%, # 1 to #20 pay more taxes than the remaining 80% of Canadians combined.

So what?

19 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

What the top 20 or 15 or 1% make is immaterial. They all pay taxes more than any other taxpayer.

and someone in the 50% percentile pays more than someone in the 90th percentile. Again, so what?

19 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Taxes are not based on disposable income.

and yet it's the primary rationale for progressive tax systems...

19 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

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.

My obsession? You sound like Fox ?.

ExFlyer · August 4, 2023

1 minute ago, Moonbox said:

So what?

and someone in the 50% percentile pays more than someone in the 90th percentile. Again, so what?

and yet it's the primary rationale for progressive tax systems...

My obsession?  You sound like Fox ?.

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

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.

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.

impartialobserver · August 4, 2023

14 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Well we know wealth is not a zero sum game. Wealth can be created, there's not a limited supply. Its' not like there's a "wealthonium" mine some where and whomever owns it has all the wealth

So what you really mean is it a zero sum game in our society/country and it's structure and it's pretty easily demonstrable it is not.

Oh how soon you forget. In my first post.. I thought I made it clear that I do not believe it to be a zero sum game. If someone did believe this to be true. .. then you would make an independent variable for it. How accurate this would be.. dubious at best but only because you would have to decide on a fixed number.

Well, the point is that proving your claim or that of the opposition numerically and objectively is not as simple as it sounds. Lots of variables, lots of tests, and lots of converting data to this format or that format.

CdnFox · August 4, 2023

14 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Oh how soon you forget. In my first post.. I thought I made it clear that I do not believe it to be a zero sum game.

Umm - nobody said you didn't I just pointed out why it's easy to see that is the correct thing to believe

Quote

If someone did believe this to be true. .. then you would make an independent variable for it. How accurate this would be.. dubious at best but only because you would have to decide on a fixed number.

And if someone wanted fish for dinner they would go to the store and buy some. Both statements are irrelevant to the conversation though.

Quote

Well, the point is that proving your claim or that of the opposition numerically and objectively is not as simple as it sounds. Lots of variables, lots of tests, and lots of converting data to this format or that format.

Proving anything is usually more difficult than it sounds. But - in the real world you gather what information you have and make reasonable analysis and you keep an open mind against the day when new information becomes available.

And as it is there's pretty strong evidence what i've said is correct - others being wealthy doesn't prelude you from being wealthy in our current model, and in fact it may help. While 'strong evidence' is not 'absolute proof', it's reasonable to accept it till additional info is available. That's how most sciences operate.

impartialobserver · August 4, 2023

15 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Umm - nobody said you didn't I just pointed out why it's easy to see that is the correct thing to believe

And if someone wanted fish for dinner they would go to the store and buy some. Both statements are irrelevant to the conversation though.

Proving anything is usually more difficult than it sounds. But - in the real world you gather what information you have and make reasonable analysis and you keep an open mind against the day when new information becomes available.

And as it is there's pretty strong evidence what i've said is correct - others being wealthy doesn't prelude you from being wealthy in our current model, and in fact it may help. While 'strong evidence' is not 'absolute proof', it's reasonable to accept it till additional info is available. That's how most sciences operate.

I do recall from my days at grad school/academia that if our very complex analysis affirmed what someone claimed then we were brilliant, amazing, and every other superlative that you could think of. Now, if it did not... then our analysis was abstract nonsense and that we should rely on reason and logic instead.

CdnFox · August 4, 2023

42 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

I do recall from my days at grad school/academia that if our very complex analysis affirmed what someone claimed then we were brilliant, amazing, and every other superlative that you could think of. Now, if it did not... then our analysis was abstract nonsense and that we should rely on reason and logic instead.

Well sounds like you used to hang out with people who focused too much on the process and didn't understand what reason and logic are. I hung out with a different crowd personally. But canadian education standards are a little different in the end.

impartialobserver · August 4, 2023

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

Well sounds like you used to hang out with people who focused too much on the process and didn't understand what reason and logic are. I hung out with a different crowd personally. But canadian education standards are a little different in the end.

Well.. if you do not focus on the process then folks pick apart your stuff. You could do 999 things perfectly but do not get the 1000th correct... the whole product is garbage. You can't give someone ammunition to discount your analysis. They tend to be skeptical because they do not understand the math/statistics or in the case of politicians... do not have the brain power to understand it. Does the analysis always go the way I think it will.. no. Sometimes you do an analysis and come to find out my assumptions/ideas that I held before were not so legit in the end.