Election 2015

[Kirkhill]

Ballz:

You have just espoused the libertarian position. 

But, unfortunately, to not make a decision is to make a decision.  By making a decision to not support the family then you make a decision that negatively impacts the family.

The current government, with which I happen to agree on this matter, feels that society is better served if its nuclear element is strong.  The position is, and I admit it is a belief as most things are, the position is that problems are best managed quickly at the source.  The further belief is that a strong, empowered, family is best positioned to manage problems before they become societal problems.

It is a belief.  It is opposable and is opposed.  That is why we have elections.

 

[JS2218]

This is the silliest thing I've ever heard. Two adult individuals made a *choice* to engage in an agreement that involves living together, sharing expenses, etc (which is usually financially to their advantage), and a *choice* to have kids (which is usually financially to their disadvantage). The government has no business supporting or not supporting these choices. They should still have the same responsibility to pay "x" % of their income in taxes. It would be no more justified than if two bachelor's lived together and decided to buy a dog, and the government decides all willy nilly they should pay less taxes than someone without a dog.

This is a Conservative Party promoting its own social agenda at the expense of all other taxpayer's. IMO, in a free society government has no place in supporting / not supporting choices made by sovereign individuals.

The right thing to do is a flat tax rate and no biases added from the government (deduction for this, credit for that). There is a hardly a person in the country that wouldn't directly benefit from a 17,000 BPE and 15% flat tax rate on anything over that, and we wouldn't need a $7 billion CRA just to take our money.

I'm curious if your party has done any research on what it would cost the federal treasury to implement a flat tax. I agree with it, but I also agree that it could be a huge hit to revenue sources (my guess is you'd have to find data on the amounts of personal income taxes collected, according to their income bracket).

 

[George Wallace]

I agree from a libertarian perspective this is all screwy. I also would prefer a flat tax, but it would be hell to implement without some scheme for transferring the bulk of revenue generation to some other taxation scheme.  Meanwhile, on the other side there are two parties musing over childcare programs.  I'd rather let people pay less tax and make spending decisions for themselves than establish another grant program for one kind of spending.

A flat tax, would probably be lower than all the various forms of tax we have, and yet generate more revenue for the government.  We have GST, HST, Provincial Sales taxes, hidden taxes in liquor and gas sales, Airport taxes, environmental taxes, and the list goes on and on; not to mention annual filing of Income Tax.  Get rid of them all and simply tax everything at a low level, say 10%.  I don't see why taxation has to be so damn complicated. 

The Government needs to have a "National Dream" and that involves "Nation Building" which means "JOBS".  The unemployed don't pay taxes per say.  They collect tax breaks, unemployment benefits, Welfare, etc.  Taxes are collected from workers, who also have disposable incomes to spend.  Those disposable incomes require items and services to be produced by businesses and industry.  Spending tax revenues on supporting the unemployed is a drain contributing to the National Debt. 

If the Liberals plan is for the spending of money; it should be spent wisely in "Nation Building", not supporting those who are unproductive and draining the nation's coffers.

But I suppose that this is just too simplistic.

 

[ballz]

I'm curious if your party has done any research on what it would cost the federal treasury to implement a flat tax. I agree with it, but I also agree that it could be a huge hit to revenue sources (my guess is you'd have to find data on the amounts of personal income taxes collected, according to their income bracket).

Based off of 2013 taxes, if you implemented a 15% rate with a 17k BPE, the government would have collected around $82 billion in income tax, which is ~50 billion dollar less revenue than was collected ($130 billion). In the grand scheme, the Feds revenue was $271.7 billion, so this would mean only around $221 billion. The real question is, given $50 billion dollars left in the hands of the taxpayer's, how much revenue would be collected the next year? It's impossible to calculate, but certainly if $82 billion was the *worst*, revenues would start going up with that much money left in the hands of the consumer.

Obviously cutting $50 billion dollars all in one shot is pretty risky both politically and fiscally. The actual plan for implementing the 15% / 17k BPE being discussed, in order to "ease" the transition, is to roll it out over a few years....
Year 1) Raise the BPE to 17,000
Year 2) Eliminate the highest tax bracket (29% of taxable income over $138,58)
Year 3) Eliminate the next tax bracket (26% on the next $49,185 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $89,401 up to $138,586) )
Year 4) Eliminate the next tax bracket (22% on the next $44,700 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $44,701 up to $89,401))
Year 5) End state has been achieved. 17000 BPE with a 15% flat tax rate.

Of course, the Libertarian Party would cut spending immensely. Our position on healthcare is that it belongs to the province, so the Canada Health Act (which was created in order to seize the province's ability to control its own healthcare through controlling the spending, not at all in the spirit of the Constitution) would be repealed. This would eliminate the most massive expense to the Federal gov't, and that's transfers to the provincial governments for healthcare spending. Of course, it would then be up to the provinces to decide the best way to raise revenues for healthcare spending, so despite our tax cuts you may seem some taxes raised at the provincial level. That is, in my opinion, the most effective way anyway. All this centralization at the top is not good. Delegate to the provinces, and hopefully the provinces delegate to the municipalities.

 

[Jed]

Based off of 2013 taxes, if you implemented a 15% rate with a 17k BPE, the government would have collected around $82 billion in income tax, which is ~50 billion dollar less revenue than was collected ($130 billion). In the grand scheme, the Feds revenue was $271.7 billion, so this would mean only around $221 billion. The real question is, given $50 billion dollars left in the hands of the taxpayer's, how much revenue would be collected the next year? It's impossible to calculate, but certainly if $82 billion was the *worst*, revenues would start going up with that much money left in the hands of the consumer.

Obviously cutting $50 billion dollars all in one shot is pretty risky both politically and fiscally. The actual plan for implementing the 15% / 17k BPE being discussed, in order to "ease" the transition, is to roll it out over a few years....
Year 1) Raise the BPE to 17,000
Year 2) Eliminate the highest tax bracket (29% of taxable income over $138,58)
Year 3) Eliminate the next tax bracket (26% on the next $49,185 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $89,401 up to $138,586) )
Year 4) Eliminate the next tax bracket (22% on the next $44,700 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $44,701 up to $89,401))
Year 5) End state has been achieved. 17000 BPE with a 15% flat tax rate.

Of course, the Libertarian Party would cut spending immensely. Our position on healthcare is that it belongs to the province, so the Canada Health Act (which was created in order to seize the province's ability to control its own healthcare through controlling the spending, not at all in the spirit of the Constitution) would be repealed. This would eliminate the most massive expense to the Federal gov't, and that's transfers to the provincial governments for healthcare spending. Of course, it would then be up to the provinces to decide the best way to raise revenues for healthcare spending, so despite our tax cuts you may seem some taxes raised at the provincial level. That is, in my opinion, the most effective way anyway. All this centralization at the top is not good. Delegate to the provinces, and hopefully the provinces delegate to the municipalities.

The biggest problem with attempting to simplify the tax system to a flat rate system is not the temporary loss of government revenue.

The big issue would be the breaking of millions of people's rice bowls and they would have to adapt by whatever means possible to earn a living.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Looking at CCRA's final tables for the 2011 tax year (PDF format).

Total returns filed 26,333,940 (17,429,010 taxable and 8,904,930 non-taxable).

Total income assessed (ie. before deductions) $1,122,019,231,000.

Total taxable income assessed (ie. after deductions) $1,000,625,545,000.

Total net federal tax $116,488,627,000.  That amount is 10.38% of assessed income and 11.64% of taxable income.

So, yes, a flat tax of 10% by the numbers (obviously people will change behaviour to suit a change in taxation conditions) comes close to generating the same amount of revenue if you ignore all the credits (closer if you disallow all the deductions as well).  Of course it also bites into the after tax income of many of the 1/3 of filers who file non-taxable returns*.  What is inescapably true is that it requires a sudden and large shifting of a tax burden away from people who can afford it to many who cannot.

*"A tax return is considered taxable when the sum of net federal tax, net provincial tax, CPP contributions payable on self-employment earnings, EI premiums payable on self-employment earnings, and social benefit repayment amounts was at least $2 and non-taxable when this sum was less than $2."  (Not everyone who files a non-taxable return necessarily has a low income, so it's only an approximation to support the gist of my point.)

 

[Brad Sallows]

>All this centralization at the top is not good.

I agree as a general principle, but:

>Delegate to the provinces, and hopefully the provinces delegate to the municipalities.

There is wide regional variation in what is affordable.  If the plan is to allow people to sort themselves out (by relocating, etc), I think what you will find is that they will choose another course of action and sort you (the responsible political party) out.

 

[observor 69]

Provinces administrating, raising revenue for, their own social programs. Rich provinces have good health care poorer provinces, NB and others, not so much. Explain how this is a good idea.

 

[ballz]

Provinces administrating, raising revenue for, their own social programs. Rich provinces have good health care poorer provinces, NB and others, not so much. Explain how this is a good idea.

Each province has its own demographic challenges for everything. Healthcare is a perfect example. Some have an aging population, some have higher rates of obesity, some have more success treating cancer, etc, etc. As it stands now, the Federal government has the province by the balls, as the Canada Health Act means they will not receive any funding for healthcare if they vary from the standard the Federal government sets. If a province wanted to do certain things certain ways, they would be stopped. How can anyone argue that the Federal government should be stopping a province from having autonomy over its own healthcare is good? How can a solution for 35,000,000 people be reached? It is clearly easy to find a better solution by region, voted by those people on what's best for themselves.

Beyond that, it's a good idea because Albertans shouldn't be paying for Quebec's daycare programs no more than I should be paying for your children's sports programs. Poorer provinces like NB are not entitled to a ton of social programs. With the way NB has mismanaged itself, it doesn't deserve a cent from tax-payers in other province.

If you believe in helping poorer provinces out, here's your money, you can donate it to various provincial governments on your own behalf. Please don't advocate taking my money and donating to things I don't believe in on my behalf.

There is wide regional variation in what is affordable.  If the plan is to allow people to sort themselves out (by relocating, etc), I think what you will find is that they will choose another course of action and sort you (the responsible political party) out.

Which is exactly the reason we need a Libertarian Party of Canada. People would rather vote to have the government steal other people's money for them so they can subsidize their own laziness, and as long as political parties focus only on getting elected, and not on actually LEADING the country in a direction, the status quo will be maintained. Conservative, Liberal, NDP, they are all relatively the same. You can only lead a horse to water, you can't force it to drink.

The big issue would be the breaking of millions of people's rice bowls and they would have to adapt by whatever means possible to earn a living.

Indeed!

 

[a_majoor]

I'd go even farther WRT healthcare, and make a provision for the establishment of "Registered Health Care Accounts", similar in intent to RRSP, TFSA and RESP accounts. Each person pays for basic healthcare out of the account (checkups, basic medications etc.), what is not spent that year rolls over into the next year, plus whatever interest or investment income is made from the principle. All Canadians should also have the option to purchase a "catastrophic" health care insurance to deal with things like critical diseases, being run over by a bus or other non routine expenses. In the US system, consumers were hobbled by having to buy health care insurance from a limited pool of providers "in State"; I would certainly not want that condition imposed on Canadians (they should be free to shop for their insurance anywhere).

What makes RHCA's or similar plans work is the idea that consumers will shop around for the best deal. So long as the market is transparent (and this is one of the areas where the Government does have a role), then consumers will be able to shop and market pressures will bring down health care costs (probably the first thing to go would be the costly bureaucracy, which does not add much, if anything, to healthcare at all). Market pressure will also help bring health care to under serviced areas, at least some doctors will decide that fighting for patients in Toronto is less lucrative than being the only provider in a northern Ontario community.

Like all other plans, there will obviously be some areas where RHSA's are not as effective, and the transition will have to be managed carefully.

Sadly, while *we* can engage in intelligent debate on the issue, I doubt that anyone outside of this thread will really speak about the issue (certainly not the leaders of the big three parities), and despite the large number of journalists who lurk on this site, I am pretty confident that not one of them will write about flat taxes, RHSA's or any ideas outside the "narrative", nor ask any political leaders questions about these ideas. You already see them avoiding questions about the Liberal plan to "dip into" our retirement IOT fund Liberal election buying projects, and that is probably a far more dangerous threat to the retirement and well being of Canadians (not to mention the Canadian economy as various malinvestment balloons get inflated) than any of the plans discussed here.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Bruce MacKinnon does it again.  ;D

Halifax Chronicle Herald Cartoon

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Since everyone is talking about a flat-tax, an article from today's (24 Jan) National Post by Mark Milke that looks at recent comments by the new Premier of Alberta and while Alberta specific, does relate to flat taxes. Re-produced under the fair dealings section of the Copyright Act.

Mark Milke: Jim Prentice is wrong on taxes
Mark Milke, National Post | January 24, 2015 | Last Updated: Jan 24 8:02 AM ET

Contrary to what the new Premier has said, low-income residents are taxed less in Alberta than anywhere else in Canada. After governments abandon fiscal prudence, they will soon search for any and all ways to tax people more. This is the reality playing out in Alberta where Premier Jim Prentice has floated multiple tax increase trial balloons.

The premier, new to the office, is not responsible for jacking up program spending beyond what inflation and population growth would warrant over the last decade. Former premiers Ed Stelmach and Alison Redford must share that crown.

But Premier Prentice is responsible if he now spends above what Albertans can afford and taxes them more to pay for it, rather than chop expenses, including the $22.5-billion in public-sector compensation — nearly half of Alberta’s total expenditures.

For example, the Premier has attacked Alberta’s 10% single personal income tax rate, and hinted at new and higher tax brackets. In a recent  interview, he claimed that “as you study the Alberta tax system, it’s quite clear that for people who are the working poor, it is a system which bites them pretty hard, compared to the rest of the country.”

Actually, the Premier is flat-out wrong — the exact opposite is true. Other provinces tax the poor more than Alberta, partly because of Alberta’s rather generous basic exemption.

In Alberta, someone who earns less than $17,787 pays no provincial personal income tax. And the 10% tax rate applies only to income above that level.

In contrast, the poor in other provinces start paying provincial income tax after $7,708 in Prince Edward Island (the tiniest exemption) and after $15,378 in Saskatchewan (the next most generous province after Alberta). Other provinces are sandwiched in between.

The $17,787 Alberta exemption also means that critics who claim Alberta’s single tax is not progressive — that everyone, poor or wealthy, all pay the same proportion of their income in provincial income tax — are mistaken.

Let’s look at some simplified examples, which do not account for tax credits or deductions, but illustrate the point.

Earn $17,787 in Alberta and you’ll pay nothing in provincial income tax. Earn $50,000 and 6.4% of your income is taxed ($50,000 minus the $17,787 exemption; the 10% tax is paid on the remaining $32,213). Earn $100,000 and 8.2% of your income is taxed. There’s a word for such sliding proportions of tax paid: progressive.

Or consider another analysis measuring the total provincial tax burden paid by the bottom 25% of income earners. They provide 4.8% of all taxes collected in Saskatchewan, 5.8% in Ontario, and 5.9% in British Columbia. In Alberta, by comparison, the taxes paid by that bottom 25% account for just 2.9% of the province’s total tax revenues.

According to the author of this analysis, there are two ways to ensure poor Canadians pay a smaller proportion of their income (or of total taxes collected) than do wealthier taxpayers.

One way: multiple rates that tax high-income earners at higher levels. However, the author warns that this “may discourage high-income, highly skilled workers from moving to Alberta or staying here.”

Or the second way, what Alberta does: a high basic personal exemption from income tax.

Insofar as the argument is about the progressivity of Alberta’s system, the author of this analysis of Alberta’s single-rate system is correct.

And where does this laudable analysis come from? The provincial government’s very own Budget 2014. The provincial tax comparisons and discussion of progressivity can be found on page 120, in a section entitled “Alberta’s Progressive Tax System.”

Alberta’s Budget 2014 sums up Alberta’s progressive single-rate tax system this way: “When all taxes are considered, Alberta has a very progressive tax system that compares well with other provinces.”

Indeed. And Alberta Finance is correct and Premier Prentice is mistaken. Alberta’s single-rate system serves Albertans well — including the very poor.

National Post

Mark Milke is a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute. He was author of a 1998 report to the Alberta Income Tax Review Committee calling for a single income tax rate.

Article Link

 

[ballz]

Ballz:

You have just espoused the libertarian position. 

But, unfortunately, to not make a decision is to make a decision.  By making a decision to not support the family then you make a decision that negatively impacts the family.

How did I "not make a decision?" I've decided that one individual's liberty is not more important than another individual's liberty just because one made some choices that I like and the other didn't.

The further belief is that a strong, empowered, family is best positioned to manage problems before they become societal problems.

I believe that imposing your beliefs on others at their expense is immoral. By supporting a tax cut for "families," you are raising the tax burden on people who are not "families." There is a consequence to this action that affects others. I am not advocating weakening families, I am advocating staying neutral to both married people and bachelors / bachelorettes. You (and by you I mean anyone who supports income splitting), however, are advocating artificially strengthening a family by weakening the sovereignty of many individuals (relative to the rest of society).

It is a belief.  It is opposable and is opposed.  That is why we have elections.

:nod:

 

[YZT580]

Actually, you are making it more fair by sharing income.  Two people earning 50000 each currently pay significantly fewer taxes than one person earning 100000.  So the family that elects to have one spouse raise the kids under the current system has less disposable income than the two who are farming the kids out.  That is the extreme.  Currently it is more likely to have one income of around 75000 and the second paying 10 to 15 and hour; especially in the military where the spouse cannot always develop their career in the way they would like due to the transfers.  Even for people with a profession such as teaching or nursing the credits are not always transferrable.  So you end up with a sergeant and a gas jockey or a worker at Walmart.  All income splitting does is make those two equivalent to the original two earning 50000 each.  That isn't discriminatory it is treating families equally.  The guy making 200000 or more a year could care less.  He has lots of other tax breaks its the poor sucker in the middle that is finally getting a long overdue correction.

 

[ballz]

Actually, you are making it more fair by sharing income.  Two people earning 50000 each currently pay significantly fewer taxes than one person earning 100000.  So the family that elects to have one spouse raise the kids under the current system has less disposable income than the two who are farming the kids out.  That is the extreme.  Currently it is more likely to have one income of around 75000 and the second paying 10 to 15 and hour; especially in the military where the spouse cannot always develop their career in the way they would like due to the transfers.  Even for people with a profession such as teaching or nursing the credits are not always transferrable.  So you end up with a sergeant and a gas jockey or a worker at Walmart.  All income splitting does is make those two equivalent to the original two earning 50000 each.  That isn't discriminatory it is treating families equally.  The guy making 200000 or more a year could care less.  He has lots of other tax breaks its the poor sucker in the middle that is finally getting a long overdue correction.

Your logic on what is "fair" is kind of amazing.

OC India Coy is a first year Major and makes ~100k year and has no wife and kids (or does have a wife, or does have a kid, who friggin' knows). He pays "x" taxes.

OC Hotel Coy is a first year Major and makes ~100k a year. He has a wife who looks after his two kids because they decided adequate childcare for their two kids was almost as much money as his wife would make anyway). OC Hotel Coy uses income splitting and pays substantially less taxes than OC India.

Two people, doing the same job, making 100k a year, pay substantially different tax rates because the government actively supports one person's lifestyle choices. One person is getting an awesome benefit, the other person is getting f**ked.

 

[PuckChaser]

And yet OC Hotel Coy has kids, who will presumably grow up to be taxpayers and create a larger tax base. Also purchasing more food, bigger house, clothes, etc and making a larger economic impact. Yes, OC India Coy is paying $2000 a year more in taxes, but can easily afford to put enough into RRSPs so he gains the exact same benefit as income splitting.

Are you saying you'd advocate getting rid of child tax credit, fitness incentive, exemption amounts for dependents? Should we trash the amount you can claim by paying property tax because owning a home is a lifestyle choice?

 

[a_majoor]

One of the huge issues is that any sort of tax system have various distorting systems on the economy and people's choices. After all, people follow incentives, and if the tax system offers enough incentives then people will change their behaviour to take advantage of that.

Given the current tax system looks like a complex geographic "range" with folded layers of sediments and incursions of volcanic rocks due to decades of tax preferences to buy voters or punish opposing voters, "unwinding" the system will cause a huge amount of dislocation(s) and be opposed by the people and organizations who benefit by the current scheme. Many of these people are well funded and well organized, so this is not a task to be undertaken lightly.

In general, tax reductions should be applauded, but broad based tax cuts should be applauded more than "boutique" tax cuts, which are designed to incentives certain behaviours and are best regarded as "bribes" for certain voting demographics, which is the point ballz is trying to make.

 

[ballz]

And yet OC Hotel Coy has kids, who will presumably grow up to be taxpayers and create a larger tax base. Also purchasing more food, bigger house, clothes, etc and making a larger economic impact.

Not only is that quite a leap, it's missing the point. The government has *no business* telling you how to live your life. By giving tax breaks to some people based on their choices, it is encouraging people to make certain choices in line with their own view, and doing it by making the tax burden higher for someone else who they disagree with. Even worse, its using other people's money to do this.

It's fine and dandy for you to argue because you AGREE with this policy, but what would you say if the government was giving a tax break for something you didn't believe in? You would be arguing that you don't want the government spending your money on something you don't believe in. The only way for the government not to spend money on something someone doesn't believe in is to remain neutral, tax everybody the same, and allow them to make their choices as they wish.

OC Hotel CHOSE to get married and he CHOSE to have kids and he and his wife have made a CHOICE for her not work. If he is financially disadvantaged as a result of these CHOICES, that's fine because no one forced him to do it.

EDIT: Further to that, you have no idea what OC India Coy would do with that extra money or what the economic spin-offs would be. To me, that's irrelevant, but since you want to weigh hypotheticals... that game could be played all day and no one would win. Truthfully, I don't care if OC India Coy wants to use the $2000 to buy a new subwoofer for his pickup truck, and OC Hotel Coy wants to use the $2000 to invest in an RESP for his kids' university tuition... that still doesn't make it any more justifiable to tax OC I more than OC H.

Yes, OC India Coy is paying $2000 a year more in taxes, but can easily afford to put enough into RRSPs so he gains the exact same benefit as income splitting.

No, he doesn't gain the exact same benefit. Don't even try to make this argument because you know its false. He has $2000 less net income than OC Hotel does with which to live his life *the way he chooses.*

Are you saying you'd advocate getting rid of child tax credit, fitness incentive, exemption amounts for dependents? Should we trash the amount you can claim by paying property tax because owning a home is a lifestyle choice?

Yes, yes, yes. Are you seriously going to argue that getting rid of those benefits is somehow not going to be outweighed by a $17,000 BPE with a 15% flat tax rate in the majority of cases? Or that taxing everybody at the same rate would be somehow less fair than taxing certain people more and certain people less based on their own lifestyle choices?

Should we trash the amount you can claim by paying property tax because owning a home is a lifestyle choice?

Well for one thing, owning a home certainly is a lifestyle choice. I see no reason the government should financially support those who want to own a home instead of renting.

But, more to the point, we should be outraged that the government will not let us own our own property and taxes us on it every year long after its been paid for. We should demand the right to own our own property and not be taxed year after year. The government has taken your ability to actually own a carrot farm from you by force and offered you a carrot in return to keep you happy, and you have settled for the carrot.

 

[jollyjacktar]

I've just noticed the change in electoral boundaries for Central Nova/Sackville Eastern Shore.  Peter Stoffer has lost more ground again to Peter MacKay for the upcoming election.  Paul Martin's 2006 election changed our address to Central Nova and now it's even more of us here.  I am annoyed as we are part of the Halifax Regional Municipality and have no real connection of the Central Nova folks.  I was just about at the end of the line before and felt out of touch with my MP, Peter MacKay.  This won't change things much.  His grass roots are further east in Pictou etc, therefore that is where he understandably turns his attentions to. 

 

[Tibbson]

And then there are those persistent rumours that the HRM bit off more then it could chew and may contract a bit to a more realistic and manageable size which may really leave you in political limbo depending upon where you are.