Want a truly fairer income tax system? Tax families (interesting tax model)

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

When Canadians were polled on the prospect of a wealth tax on the one per cent back in 2021, it garnered almost 90 per cent support nationwide, including 82 per cent from Conservative voters.

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2024/02/22/opinion/canada-needs-wealth-tax#:~:text=When Canadians were polled on,per cent from Conservative voters.

Sure,  There's a lot of dumb people out there who don't understand how things work and think like you do.  Canadians were ALSO polled on who would be the best prime minister and they chose justin trudeau.  How'd that work out.

But just like the carbon tax, as people see the impact of higher taxes on wealth fleeing the country (first  years EVER that we lost business investment, and we're nosediving already in productivity) then they'll realize that it just makes them poorer with no benefit

 

Quote

Personally I think he should and tax wealth more along the lines that the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives suggests instead. 

IF you're hoping that he'll start taking a lot of advice from a left wing think tank i'd prepare for disappointment

What needs to happen is we have to send a message to the world - if you live here and invest here it's ok to be rich. You can get rich, you can get richer."   We need wealthy people to come here and invest and start businesses and put money into those businesses to make them more productive which increases the wages and opportunity of all people.  That makes our gov'ts more taxes, raises quality of life, and lets us create a future where our children will be able to own a home again without inheriting one.

If you "tax the rich" the way the left wants to, the rich go somewhere else. And you don't get jobs from poor people.

[blackbird]

Trying to change a free enterprise system by increasing taxes on the rich doesn't look like it works because the rich control the businesses, corporations, professional services, etc. and they will likely just turn around and increase costs of everything to cover any increases in taxes.  This is why the whole idea is flawed.

It would make more sense to increase educational opportunities for people and encourage innovation and motivate people to improve their lot.  In other words help build a more productive, prosperous society.  We will always have people who are disadvantaged physically, mentally, etc. and need help.  That should continue of course and society should try to make improvements for their lives as well.  

 

[WestCanMan]

On 4/25/2024 at 2:35 PM, CdnFox said:

https://archive.ph/xc8xx#selection-1511.9-1511.60

One-earner families pay thousands more dollars in income tax than two-earner families with the same income. How is that possibly fair?

Consider two similar families living in Ontario. In the first, both parents earn $60,000. In the second, one parent earns $120,000, the other nothing. These two households have the same financial resources, yet the second family pays over $7,000 more a year in taxes (not including CPP or EI). Why? Because with our progressive rate structure, the single-earner’s second $60,000 tranche of income — from $60,001 to $120,000 — faces a higher marginal tax rate than the two separate $60,000 incomes earned by the first family

According to Statistics Canada, 2.2 million couples in Canada rely on one income. Plus, an unknown number of the 5.1 million dual-income earning couples will have earnings unequal enough to trigger some form of tax penalty. In short, it’s not a trivial issue.

There's another interesting cost to taxpayers associated with that tax structure...

One of my best friends is a Cape Bretoner, and his dad was a lobster fisherman with his own boat. 

He'd rake in gobs of money during the season, and rather than bear the brunt of all those taxes himself, he'd claim the wife as a cook, and give her a big salary, and pay a bunch to his kids as deck hands, etc. Even when they didn't set foot on the boat.

The tax structure that you're talking about saved them a lot of money in taxes, and then they'd all be eligible for EI (UI at that time), and in the maritimes EI doesn't just last a few months. 

I don't know if our gov't even made a dollar from that family at the end of the year. They might have paid out more money than they got in taxes. 

[eyeball]

16 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Canadians were ALSO polled on who would be the best prime minister and they chose justin trudeau.  How'd that work out.

The only reason was that Trudeau wasn't Harper. Now they're choosing Poilievre because he's not Trudeau. Poilievre will suffer the same fate and likely sooner rather than later.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

There's another interesting cost to taxpayers associated with that tax structure...

One of my best friends is a Cape Bretoner, and his dad was a lobster fisherman with his own boat. 

He'd rake in gobs of money during the season, and rather than bear the brunt of all those taxes himself, he'd claim the wife as a cook, and give her a big salary, and pay a bunch to his kids as deck hands, etc. Even when they didn't set foot on the boat.

The tax structure that you're talking about saved them a lot of money in taxes, and then they'd all be eligible for EI (UI at that time), and in the maritimes EI doesn't just last a few months. 

I don't know if our gov't even made a dollar from that family at the end of the year. They might have paid out more money than they got in taxes. 

It's fairly common. If you own a business try to "employ' the family.  But- you can only go so far.  And every year people like your friend get audited and pretty quick the govt' catches them lying and then it's pretty brutal.

But this was basically what the conservatives said should be legal.  A partner, most often a woman, stays working in the home primarily and takes care of the kids and maybe earns a little bit doing some part time gig but she gets no credit, her contribution is considered to be worth nothing. it SHOULD be treated as being part of the other person's income, and they SHOULD be allowed to split incomes at least up to a certain point.

It also helps make families viable. Right now there's a 'tax penalty' for one person to stop working to have kids, and lo and behold our birth rate is in the tank.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

The only reason was that Trudeau wasn't Harper.

Harper was gone for the last two elections.  BZZZZT! Fail

And no, they're choosing polievre because they've seen what happens when you vote woke, and polievre has shown that he's got a far better grip on the realities of canadian life and isn't just in it to virtue signal. You don't hear polievre saying things like "the budget will balance itself" or  'I care about families so excuse me if i don't think about fiscal policy".  Or "i think china's dictatorship is something i admire"

They chose Justin originally for the wrong reasons, and they kept choosing him for the wrong reasons, and now they're destitute. 

They'll give PP  a huge majority - they'll likely give him another one after that. And then we'll see - it wouldn't surprise me to see him win a third election

You want to konw how bad it is? THe conservative party of bc is soaring ahead of the ndp- and it's all riding on the back of Polievre's popularity. That guy hasn't done anything to justify his polling numbers, that party should be fighting it out with the greens.  But - they could win this election because people genuinely like PP and the conservative brand so much that they aren't realizing there's a big difference.

 

[Aristides]

4 hours ago, eyeball said:

The only reason was that Trudeau wasn't Harper. Now they're choosing Poilievre because he's not Trudeau. Poilievre will suffer the same fate and likely sooner rather than later.

They all do. All leaders have a shelf life.

[Legato]

6 minutes ago, Aristides said:

They all do. All leaders have a shelf life.

Yea but Poilievre's shelf is the size of the Siberian continental. Whereas Trudeau's shelf looks like an Ikea knockoff.

[Aristides]

28 minutes ago, Legato said:

Yea but Poilievre's shelf is the size of the Siberian continental. Whereas Trudeau's shelf looks like an Ikea knockoff.

They always do to begin with.

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

It's fairly common. If you own a business try to "employ' the family.  But- you can only go so far.  And every year people like your friend get audited and pretty quick the govt' catches them lying and then it's pretty brutal.

Funny story...

Like you said, lots of people do it, and one of the jobs that he put on his UI form that he was theoretically looking for work in was the Coast Guard, because nobody ever gets it, but they got him a job in the coast guard. He was on the upper deck chopping ice off of everything to prevent the boats from getting top-heavy and tipping over. 

He quit that job and lost his UI 🤣

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

They always do to begin with.

No ,actually they don't. Trudeau didn't look like he'd last all that long to be honest - and in fairness he BARELY won his second election. He actually got less votes than his opponent.  He kind of tricked and lied his way through and weaponized the covid pandemic to squeak another win, then sold out to the ndp to hold on to power. If jagmeet had happened to have morals or ethics he'd have been long done.

Lots of others didn't look like long term candidates either.  Joe Clark never did.  Turner never did.  Paul martin didn't.

Eventually everyone winds up either stepping down or being defeated, but the parties often carry on. Look how long the alberta PC party was in power, even tho the leaders regularly changed.

The fact is in most cases someone is a good leader but not a good campaigner (harper) or is an excellent campaigner but a poor leader (justin).   It's very rare to find someone who is both. But i think Polievre is going to turn out to be one of those rare cases. He knows the job, he knows how to make the system work, but he's also clearly a solid campaigner.  He went from zero to hero in the eyes of the public in a short time, whereas erin and scheer never had that skill.

So - i think he's going to be a bit of a big deal for a while.  I don't think the libs are going to have a lot to put up against him in the near future - they're kind of looking at carney as their ace in the hole but i don't think he'll be that strong. Just like Mike Ignatieff.  Looks good on paper but he's got no experience with running a campaign or an election, will have to rely a great deal on 'advisers' (and we all know how that turns out - bad advice from bad advisers is a political catchphrase), and there will be internal issues in teh party and  i don't know that he can actually win a leadership race against some of the people in the party who have solid ties and contacts to rely on.