"Employment Tax Credit"?

[SamStranger]

Simple question:

What is the "Emplyment Tax Credit" and who will get it?

[GreenWhiteandPink]

Appearently anyone who works. It'a a $1000 tax credit which means a $150 tax refund (or $150 less tax owing if you owe after filling). It basically matches the Liberals 15% lowest income tax bracket than the liberals introduced which will remain in affect till June 30, 2006 when the rate get's increased to 15.5%.

If you make over 36000k the applicable tax you pay from the lowest bracket will basically be the same under both schemes, it's just more confusing and misleading under the conservative plan. Raise taxes to give a "tax credit".

The conservatives (or the liberals when ever they return to power) should just get rid of alot of the "tax credits" and raise the basic personal exemption or raise the lowest tax bracket rate.

Simplfy the tax system, not make it more confusing.

[Technocrat]

I couldn't agree more about simplifying the tax system. I now work in corporate sales and travel 4 days a week. My taxes are insanely complicated. Anything to make the tax code less complicated is a step in the right direction.

[geoffrey]

I couldn't agree more about simplifying the tax system. I now work in corporate sales and travel 4 days a week. My taxes are insanely complicated. Anything to make the tax code less complicated is a step in the right direction.

Since you have a unique position, your going to be hurt by any simplification. It's that complexity that allows all the write-offs and stuff like that.

Get an accountant to do your taxes if they are complicated like that, it will save you money in the long run. Simplicity defnitely would have you paying much more.

[Riverwind]

I couldn't agree more about simplifying the tax system. I now work in corporate sales and travel 4 days a week. My taxes are insanely complicated. Anything to make the tax code less complicated is a step in the right direction.

So, let's assume you spend 30% of your gross income to make the same as a teacher who has no employment expenses. Are you ok with paying the same amount of tax as that teacher? In fact, some people with employment expenses would end up paying more than 100% of their net income to the gov't in such a system.

I am pretty sure a flat tax system will not affect your situation a bit. It would just eliminate deductions for tutition, medical expenses, charitable donations etc.

[margrace]

So it sounds to me like a tax on being a senior with a bit of money put by.

[scribblet]

I couldn't agree more about simplifying the tax system. I now work in corporate sales and travel 4 days a week. My taxes are insanely complicated. Anything to make the tax code less complicated is a step in the right direction.

So, let's assume you spend 30% of your gross income to make the same as a teacher who has no employment expenses. Are you ok with paying the same amount of tax as that teacher? In fact, some people with employment expenses would end up paying more than 100% of their net income to the gov't in such a system.

I am pretty sure a flat tax system will not affect your situation a bit. It would just eliminate deductions for tutition, medical expenses, charitable donations etc.

A flat tax with all loopholes closed should work out better for all. It would also ensure the the top earners paid that percentage too. Low income earners would have their tax exemption increased, but everyone would be playing by the same rules. A flat tax is a fair methid and would treat people equally. A wealthy taxpayer with 500 times taxable income of another taxpayer would pay 500 times more in taxes.

No longer would the tax code penalize success and discriminate against citizens on the basis of income.

[Riverwind]

A flat tax with all loopholes closed should work out better for all.

Eliminating deductions for legimate expenses required to earn income is not an option. For example, a vendor selling hot dogs on the street may have gross sales of $60/year but have to pay out $40K/year for food, propane and city permits. Charging that person a flat tax calculated on $60K/year is simply criminal and would discourage people from starting new businesses.

Tax deductions for legimate business expenses are unavoidable - so people who think a flat tax will eliminate the need for tax accountants are simply wrong. Furthermore, I need no reason why someone earning 20K/year should pay the same percentage tax as someone earning 100K/year provided the taxes on the person earning 100K/year are not punative. Insisting that everyone must pay the same 'percentage' of their income is a perverse form of social engineering designed to help the wealthiest people in society at the expense of the middle class.

[scribblet]

A flat tax with all loopholes closed should work out better for all.

Eliminating deductions for legimate expenses required to earn income is not an option. For example, a vendor selling hot dogs on the street may have gross sales of $60/year but have to pay out $40K/year for food, propane and city permits. Charging that person a flat tax calculated on $60K/year is simply criminal and would discourage people from starting new businesses.

Tax deductions for legimate business expenses are unavoidable - so people who think a flat tax will eliminate the need for tax accountants are simply wrong. Furthermore, I need no reason why someone earning 20K/year should pay the same percentage tax as someone earning 100K/year provided the taxes on the person earning 100K/year are not punative. Insisting that everyone must pay the same 'percentage' of their income is a perverse form of social engineering designed to help the wealthiest people in society at the expense of the middle class.

I do realize that a flat tax will never fly, and the best we can hope for is to simplify the system and level it out.

However, a percentage tax on a higher income, obviously results in a higher amount of tax being deducted. There is no suggestion that all income be taxed at an actual amount, a percentage always results in a higher amount. As long as the lower income earners have a higher tax credit, I don't see the problem.

Social engineering would more aptly describe the attempts to lower all people to the same lowest income level. Socialism doesn't try to raise people up, it brings people down to the lowest common denominator.

[Riverwind]

There is no suggestion that all income be taxed at an actual amount, a percentage always results in a higher amount. As long as the lower income earners have a higher tax credit, I don't see the problem.

What deity decided that there is something intrinsically fair about charging everyone the same 'percentage' tax? When it comes to taxes 'fair' is a matter of opinion so you cannot argue that flat taxes are any 'fairer' than progressive taxes. In any case, most flat tax advocates don't really want a flat tax: they just want to reduce the number of tax brackets from 5 to 2 and in the process significantly increase the taxes on the middle class while cutting taxes for the rich.

My opinion: if we can afford to reduce taxes then everyone should benefit. No one should see their taxes go up as a result of a 'reform' to the system.

[scribblet]

There is no suggestion that all income be taxed at an actual amount, a percentage always results in a higher amount. As long as the lower income earners have a higher tax credit, I don't see the problem.

What deity decided that there is something intrinsically fair about charging everyone the same 'percentage' tax? When it comes to taxes 'fair' is a matter of opinion so you cannot argue that flat taxes are any 'fairer' than progressive taxes. In any case, most flat tax advocates don't really want a flat tax: they just want to reduce the number of tax brackets from 5 to 2 and in the process significantly increase the taxes on the middle class while cutting taxes for the rich.

My opinion: if we can afford to reduce taxes then everyone should benefit. No one should see their taxes go up as a result of a 'reform' to the system.

I can agree with that.

[Renegade]

So it sounds to me like a tax on being a senior with a bit of money put by.

Similarly then, you should consider the increase of the "Pension Tax Credit" to $2000, as a tax on everyone who earns a living.

[Renegade]

There is no suggestion that all income be taxed at an actual amount, a percentage always results in a higher amount. As long as the lower income earners have a higher tax credit, I don't see the problem.

What deity decided that there is something intrinsically fair about charging everyone the same 'percentage' tax? When it comes to taxes 'fair' is a matter of opinion so you cannot argue that flat taxes are any 'fairer' than progressive taxes. In any case, most flat tax advocates don't really want a flat tax: they just want to reduce the number of tax brackets from 5 to 2 and in the process significantly increase the taxes on the middle class while cutting taxes for the rich.

My opinion: if we can afford to reduce taxes then everyone should benefit. No one should see their taxes go up as a result of a 'reform' to the system.

Similarly Riverwind, which diety dedided that we should force people who earn higher income to pay a larger percentage of that income? I agree that what is fair is a matter of opinion, and seems to be defined in the self-interest of those who espouse a "fair" tax system.

In my view, taxes should not be based upon what you earn, it should be based upon the benefits your recieve. For me that's my definition of fair.

[Renegade]

A flat tax with all loopholes closed should work out better for all.

Eliminating deductions for legimate expenses required to earn income is not an option. For example, a vendor selling hot dogs on the street may have gross sales of $60/year but have to pay out $40K/year for food, propane and city permits. Charging that person a flat tax calculated on $60K/year is simply criminal and would discourage people from starting new businesses.

Tax deductions for legimate business expenses are unavoidable - so people who think a flat tax will eliminate the need for tax accountants are simply wrong. Furthermore, I need no reason why someone earning 20K/year should pay the same percentage tax as someone earning 100K/year provided the taxes on the person earning 100K/year are not punative. Insisting that everyone must pay the same 'percentage' of their income is a perverse form of social engineering designed to help the wealthiest people in society at the expense of the middle class.

I agree that we should allow legimite deductions to earn income, why why restrict that only to businesses and the self-employed. Don't the employed need a wardrobe in order to earn income? Should that not be deductable? Doesn't it make sense that a corporate executive needs a more expensive wardrobe than a hamburger-fllipper, so shouldn't he be entitled to a higher deduction for employment expenses?

[August1991]

Simple question:

What is the "Emplyment Tax Credit" and who will get it?

I don't think this good question has ever been properly answered.

Budget 2006 proposes to introduce the Canada Employment Credit, a new employment expense tax credit for employees’ work expenses. A credit on employment income of up to $500 will be provided, effective July 1, 2006. The amount of employment income eligible for the credit will rise to $1,000 effective January 1, 2007.

Budget

This means that you can deduct $500 from employment income in 2006, and $1000 from employment income in 2007, before calculating taxable income. This deduction will not apply to non-employment sources of income.

I believe this credit existed before but was abolished. The Conservatives have reinstated it.

----

In practical terms, and assuming an employee is earning between $10,000 and $29,000 and so the marginal tax rate is 15%, this credit will be an annual saving of $150.

Appearently anyone who works. It'a a $1000 tax credit which means a $150 tax refund (or $150 less tax owing if you owe after filling). It basically matches the Liberals 15% lowest income tax bracket than the liberals introduced which will remain in affect till June 30, 2006 when the rate get's increased to 15.5%.

You have to be an employee to receive the tax credit. There are many sources of income to which the credit would not apply. Furthermore, even for an employee, a combined 15.5% tax rate and a $1000 deduction (Tory propsal) is not the same as a 15% tax rate and no deduction (Liberal proposal).