The "Occupy" Movement

[ballz]

You don't have to be "RICH" to hire an accountant to do your taxes.  Don't use that as an excuse.

Hiring an accountant to fill out your income taxes is quite a bit cheaper than having one on salary that's constantly tracking the flow of money, and providing input on how you should go about moving your money around and where you should be putting it to get more tax breaks, to make sure you get every cent you can of it. Stop being unreasonable, you know we are not talking about dropping off your T4s and getting your refund. Do you agree that the rich should have to pay at least the same tax rate as everyone else or not?

Besides that, I say again, that doesn't justify in any way the existence of the loopholes that actually make this scenario possible.

So wouldn't the solution then be to simplify the tax code?

Everybody gets the first (pick your favourite multiple of thousand dollars) for free, and then a flat 10% (or 15, or 20%- pick according to your political bent) on everything after that. No exemptions or write offs, period.

Or would we put too many accounts and CRA employees out of work?

I don't know. That argument has been made before of course, I find it hard to take a side. It is possible to have a much simpler progressive tax system than we have (or the US has).... But I also don't know if it's "fair" to tax the rich at a higher rate than the middle class.

 

[ModlrMike]

The perception is that the rich are not paying their fair share. I think the reality is that they pay the same amount of tax on some of their money and less on other parts. Case in point: someone who earns 500K in income and another 500K in investments will pay the high rate on the first 500K and a lower rate on the second. The difference is that the second is earned with money that has already been taxed once, so it accrues a smaller tax liability the second time around. One pays about 50% tax rate on taxable income over 135K, while investment income is taxed at about 10%. So if you can increase your income through low tax methods, then you'll get to keep more of it. This is why many CEOs take so many stock options. The salaries are relatively modest, but the stock values are massive.

We're up in arms over multi-million dollar salaries, but the reality is that cash-in-hand makes up a relatively small amount of the total compensation package.

 

[Jungle]

So it is not about "make the rich pay," it is about "make the rich pay at least the same tax rate as everyone else."

There are a few ways to look at this; an article in the french-language media TVA in Québec in 2011 explains that approx 40% of tax-payers do not pay any taxes, while the top 20% of earners pay 70% of the govt's income-tax revenues.

Source: http://tvanouvelles.ca/lcn/economie/archives/2011/04/20110419-190540.html

 

[Nemo888]

You can't do this kind of tax avoidance with a simple accountant. You need a tax lawyer. The basic fees for a numbered Cayman account where you could make yourself a trustee of your own property and business was about $12,000 to open and 3000-5000$ a year upkeep. This was the late 80's so now it is likely significantly more.

On what planet is $135,054 a year rich? That is middle class and barely scraping by if you have kids. Most of the rich make their money off of rents of some kind or another. Many have no employment income to tax. Offshoring allows them to pay less tax then someone making 33,000$ a year.(But pay 5000$ plus in legal and accounting fees per annum) So since at best the rich are only paying capital gains at half the rate of income tax they already have a reduced tax rate. Why not tax capital gains at the same rate as income tax after the first $150,000 and then a progressive tax from there. I don't see how getting tax cheats to declare their income is inflammatory and worthy of ridicule. The rich who hide their profits offshore are moochers and takers. They are not investing in the economy and creating jobs or even paying for the infrastructure that allowed them to make those profits in the first place. Citizens making less than 300,000 a year have no choice but to disclose and pay the tax man. I don't see the benefit of a special loophole for those making more.

 

[George Wallace]

You can't do this kind of tax avoidance with a simple accountant. You need a tax lawyer. The basic fees for a numbered Cayman account where you could make yourself a trustee of your own property and business was about $12,000 to open and 3000-5000$ a year upkeep. This was the late 80's so now it is likely significantly more.

On what planet is $135,054 a year rich? That is middle class and barely scraping by if you have kids. Most of the rich make their money off of rents of some kind or another. Many have no employment income to tax. Offshoring allows them to pay less tax then someone making 33,000$ a year.(But pay 5000$ plus in legal and accounting fees per annum) So since at best the rich are only paying capital gains at half the rate of income tax they already have a reduced tax rate. Why not tax capital gains at the same rate as income tax after the first $150,000 and then a progressive tax from there. I don't see how getting tax cheats to declare their income is inflammatory and worthy of ridicule. The rich who hide their profits offshore are moochers and takers. They are not investing in the economy and creating jobs or even paying for the infrastructure that allowed them to make those profits in the first place. Citizens making less than 300,000 a year have no choice but to disclose and pay the tax man. I don't see the benefit of a special loophole for those making more.

So, if I take it from your muses here, you want to take away any and all incentives in place to encourage innovation and initiative to acquire wealth and make this a society of mediocre and dependant people relying solely on Government support.  You have no wish for members of this society to strive to better their lot, but rather stifle any chance of them doing so.  You figure that all those who have been able to attain their wealth through their labours and initiatives are not deserving of what they attained.  Instead of being complacent and complaining of what others have achieved, why don't you get off your ass and work towards bettering yourself instead of penalizing those who have worked hard to get where they are.

 

[Nemo888]

In what way does rent-seeking encourage innovation and initiative to acquire wealth? The two are opposites. Small business and those making employment income would actually see a decreased tax burden while those who inherited their wealth and quite simply didn't earn it would pay more. Most of all criminal tax cheats would finally have to pay the same as everybody else. Why are the super rich entitled not to pay their fair share of taxes?

 

[George Wallace]

In what way does rent-seeking encourage innovation and initiative to acquire wealth? The two are opposites. Small business and those making employment income would actually see a decreased tax burden while those who inherited their wealth and quite simply didn't earn it would pay more. Most of all criminal tax cheats would finally have to pay the same as everybody else. Why are the super rich entitled not to pay their fair share of taxes?

As I said, you are advocating the penalizing of those with the initiative to acquire wealth to compensate those who do not have any initiative.  You are advocating a society of mediocrity where no innovation is encouraged.

"Criminal tax cheats"?  "Criminal" means that they have broken a Law and should face prosecution.  This is not what you have been expounding in your complaints so far.  You have been complaining about loopholes.  Loopholes that are available to all who can qualify to use them.  As I said in my previous post, stop complaining, and get off your ass to work towards being able to use those loopholes yourself; not penalizing those who have achieved a position that they are capable of doing so. 

Without initiative and innovation this society will disintegrate upon itself and collapse.  Mediocrity leads to stagnation.  That will mean that your precious "Poor" will become even more so. 

Welfare States collapse eventually.  Socialism is a great concept on paper, as is Communism, but neither have succeeded in the real world.  They are philosophies of Mediocrity with all initiative stifled leading to their collapse.

 

[Nemo888]

Having the super rich on welfare has exactly the same outcome as having the poor on welfare. Rent seeking leads to mediocrity. Mediocrity leads to stagnation and a welfare state for the rich collapses just like one for the poor. IMO equality of opportunity and meritocracy were the pillars of our success. Not coddling plutocrats and allowing them to change tax codes so technically they can evade taxes legally. I want the same rules for everyone and no free lunches for millionaires.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Time to change the channel.

Both sides have been arguing the same points for some time.

Neither will change their minds.

Move on.

---Staff---

 

[vonGarvin]

For the same reason we demanded offshore accounts start declaring. Rich people should pay the same rate of taxes as you do and not be able to dodge them. This uber rich class has become a parasite on the real economy. Instead of paying taxes and supporting the economy they are hiding their wealth in positional goods. Things you put in your storage locker went through customs, paid duty and were taxed. They were not purchased with clandestine income and turned into a positional good to evade taxes.

Yes, on earnings, just like you and I pay for taxes.  And property taxes.  But i'm not about punishing others for their success in life.  Nor for their good fortune.

 

[The Bread Guy]

A bit of a channel change ....

From about this time last year:

A group of professors, documentary filmmakers, corporate dropouts and others had spent months protesting Americans’ debt burden when a novel idea arose: What if they could just wave a magic wand and make some of it disappear?

The group, an offshoot of the Occupy Wall Street movement called Strike Debt, is trying to buy some of the debts that people have accrued — which lenders often sell for pennies on the dollar to third parties who either try to collect on it or bundle it up for resale. Strike Debt, however, is not looking to collect on them; instead it plans to give some debtors the surprise of a lifetime.

“Basically what we’re going to do is exactly the same as what a regular debt buyer would do, with one big difference,” said Thomas Gokey, an artist and teacher. “Rather than collect the debt, we’re just going to abolish it.” ....

From earlier this month:

An Occupy Wall Street spin-off group has bought up $14.7 million worth of Americans' personal medical debt and forgiven it over the last year as part of its Rolling Jubilee project, the group announced Monday.

The Rolling Jubilee project, organized by Occupy Wall Street's Strike Debt group, has so far spent $400,000 to buy the debt, in the process relieving 2,693 people of the money they owed for medical services Occupy thinks should be free.

"Think of it as a bailout of the 99 percent by the 99 percent," a post on the Rolling Jubilee project's website said. 

The project, which launched on Nov. 15, 2012, raises money through small, individual contributions, and then uses that money to purchase distressed and defaulted debt from the lenders, who in this case are hospitals or medical groups.

The lenders are willing to sell it very cheaply, often for less than five cents on the dollar, because they think there is little chance they will be able to collect.

Andrew Ross, a member of Occupy's Strike Debt group and a professor at New York University, said the group was able to buy debt at a 50-to-1 ratio ....

I hope Professor Ross doesn't teach math - looks more like a 36- or 37-to-1 ratio by my math (14.7M ÷ 400,000) to non-university-professor me. 

That said, an interesing (could be sold as) "Robin Hood" strategy, indeed ....

 

[ballz]

There are a few ways to look at this; an article in the french-language media TVA in Québec in 2011 explains that approx 40% of tax-payers do not pay any taxes, while the top 20% of earners pay 70% of the govt's income-tax revenues.

Source: http://tvanouvelles.ca/lcn/economie/archives/2011/04/20110419-190540.html

While I can't read it (XXX language profile here), I have never understood that argument. If one were to apply the argument that the top 20% should only pay the same amount as the bottom 20%, then they are essentially arguing for a lump-sum tax.

While a lump-sum tax is definitely the most efficient income tax, it's pretty easy to see why no one would want to live in a society where a person making $15,000 a year pays $10,000 in taxes, and a person making $1,000,000 a year also pays $10,000 in taxes. And where would society be without a working class?

As I said, you are advocating the penalizing of those with the initiative to acquire wealth to compensate those who do not have any initiative.  You are advocating a society of mediocrity where no innovation is encouraged.

EDIT to remove non-related drivel

:

Are you really advocating that paying the same tax rate everyone else pays takes away all incentive to "get ahead?" That someone is just going to hit $300,000/year and say "you know what, the first $300k I made at a 10% tax rate was well worth it, but there's no way I'm going to earn another dollar if they are going to charge me 10% taxes on it!"

EDIT TO ADD: That somehow, having to pay the same rate after $300,000 is a penalty?

You still haven't answered my question, do you think rich people should pay a lower rate of taxes than everyone else or not?

 

[Kirkhill]

A bit of a channel change ....

From about this time last year:
From earlier this month:I hope Professor Ross doesn't teach math - looks more like a 36- or 37-to-1 ratio by my math (14.7M ÷ 400,000) to non-university-professor me. 

That said, an interesing (could be sold as) "Robin Hood" strategy, indeed ....

As a charitable foundation that might be something that I could support.  Not as a government funded entity though.  The difference is the issue of choice. 

I prefer to asked.... as the actress said to the Bishop.

 

[The Bread Guy]

As a charitable foundation that might be something that I could support.   Not as a government funded entity though.  The difference is the issue of choice. 

Agree with the yellow bit, too.

On the orange bit, if a case could be made for bailing out huge businesses (who, agreed, hire/employ people), some might be able to make a case for bailing out at the bottom end of the spectrum (who spend the money to keep the economy going). 

That said, thought, pouring all the water out of a leaky bucket only helps a bit if the leak isn't fixed and water keeps pouring back in ....

 

[ModlrMike]

While I can't read it (XXX language profile here), I have never understood that argument. If one were to apply the argument that the top 20% should only pay the same amount as the bottom 20%, then they are essentially arguing for a lump-sum tax.

While a lump-sum tax is definitely the most efficient income tax, it's pretty easy to see why no one would want to live in a society where a person making $15,000 a year pays $10,000 in taxes, and a person making $1,000,000 a year also pays $10,000 in taxes. And where would society be without a working class?

:

Are you really advocating that paying the same tax rate everyone else pays takes away all incentive to "get ahead?" That someone is just going to hit $300,000/year and say "you know what, the first $300k I made at a 10% tax rate was well worth it, but there's no way I'm going to earn another dollar if they are going to charge me 10% taxes on it!"

EDIT TO ADD: That somehow, having to pay the same rate after $300,000 is a penalty?

You still haven't answered my question, do you think rich people should pay a lower rate of taxes than everyone else or not?

The argument for flat tax is one of a flat tax rate, not a lump sum tax. It includes such policies as all income, regardless or origin are taxed at the same rate. Generous personal exemptions which raise the base level at which one begins to pay tax compensate for what would appear to be an increased burden on the less well off.

 

[George Wallace]

:

Are you really advocating that paying the same tax rate everyone else pays takes away all incentive to "get ahead?" That someone is just going to hit $300,000/year and say "you know what, the first $300k I made at a 10% tax rate was well worth it, but there's no way I'm going to earn another dollar if they are going to charge me 10% taxes on it!"

EDIT TO ADD: That somehow, having to pay the same rate after $300,000 is a penalty?

You still haven't answered my question, do you think rich people should pay a lower rate of taxes than everyone else or not?

EDIT to remove unnecessary tripe.

:

Did I say anywhere "that paying the same tax rate everyone else pays takes away all incentive to "get ahead?"  Please pay attention to detail.

Did I say anywhere that "rich people should pay a lower rate of taxes than everyone else"?  Again; pay attention to detail.

 

[Jungle]

While I can't read it (XXX language profile here),

That's a lame excuse... Google translate is your friend: http://translate.google.fr/

I have never understood that argument.

If one were to apply the argument that the top 20% should only pay the same amount as the bottom 20%, then they are essentially arguing for a lump-sum tax.

While a lump-sum tax is definitely the most efficient income tax, it's pretty easy to see why no one would want to live in a society where a person making $15,000 a year pays $10,000 in taxes, and a person making $1,000,000 a year also pays $10,000 in taxes. And where would society be without a working class?

It's clear you don't understand; as someone explained above, we are talking about a flat rate (a fixed percentage of your income). If you want to tax the top earners, overtax luxury items (restaurants, alcohol, tobacco, jewelry, etc...).

 

[ballz]

That's a lame excuse... Google translate is your friend: http://translate.google.fr/

It's clear you don't understand; as someone explained above, we are talking about a flat rate (a fixed percentage of your income). If you want to tax the top earners, overtax luxury items (restaurants, alcohol, tobacco, jewelry, etc...).

No, I do understand, and am maybe on board with a flat tax rate (I know the difference between a flat tax rate and a lump-sum tax) just look at the content of my posts (the rich should pay the same rate as everyone else).

However, the argument that "10% of the people pay 90% of the taxes" is not an argument for a flat-rate tax at all, it eventually leads to a lump-sum tax as the (only) solution. The only way to guarantee that the "top 10% pay 10% of the taxes" is with a lump-sum tax. With a flat-rate tax, we would still have "Top X% pay more than X% of the taxes."


With a flat tax rate, the top 10% (or top whatever percent) would still pay more than 10% of the total taxes.
For example, with a flat tax rate of 10% and this completely made up scenario...

2x $1 mil earners = 200,000 paid in taxes
18x $100,000 earners = 180,000 paid in taxes

"Top 10% earners pay over half the total taxes! How unfair!"

vs.

The only way to have a scenario where "Top X% pays X% of taxes" is with a lump-sum tax.
For example, with a lump-sum tax of $10,000 and another completely made up scenario...
2x $1 mil earners = $20,000 paid in taxes
18x $100,000 earners = 180,000 paid in taxes

"The top 10% earners pay 10% of the total taxes."

If you want to tax the top earners, overtax luxury items (restaurants, alcohol, tobacco, jewelry, etc...).

User fees. And I am more than 100% on board with user fees. I think we ought to be using them much more often than we do.

 

[Nemo888]

Did I say anywhere that "rich people should pay a lower rate of taxes than everyone else"?  Again; pay attention to detail.

You kind of did say that.

Those loopholes are used by people who deem it necessary and beneficial to themselves and take the time and effort to use them.  Because it is predominantly the "rich" who do so, and you do not; whose fault is it?

You don't have to be "RICH" to hire an accountant to do your taxes.  Don't use that as an excuse.

The problem is that now that we are forcing disclosure on offshore tax havens the rich are taking the money out of offshore banks and converting them into positional goods and hiding these physical objects in freeports.

Though it is  technically legal to put items in freeports indefinitely if the money that bought them could be traced the owners would be guilty of tax evasion.

Since people can't generally afford to buy Monet's and gold bars then spend thousands getting lawyers,  assigning nominees and storing them this is a very unique type of tax evasion by people who really don't need the money. The funds the Crown could recoup by even catching a few of these cheats are huge.

 

[ballz]

:

Did I say anywhere "that paying the same tax rate everyone else pays takes away all incentive to "get ahead?"  Please pay attention to detail.

Did I say anywhere that "rich people should pay a lower rate of taxes than everyone else"?  Again; pay attention to detail.

No, you didn't say anything, you just keep dodging the question because you know it would bring merit to the idea that these tax loopholes should be closed.

And then spouting off with rhetoric about how anything that raises taxes on the rich (including closing loopholes) *MUST* be bad for society.