The Trudeau Liberals 2016 Tax Plans

[Humphrey Bogart]

Because it's disgusting that some people would need to chose between paying taxes and eating food.

I agree with this, not so much for the adults but mostly for their children who are he ones that really suffer from mommy and daddy's piss poor decisions. 

On another note, the only thing the last few pages has done for me is reaffirm how stupid and convoluted our tax system is.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Because it's disgusting that some people would need to chose between paying taxes and eating food.

Amazing how many folks I know that do OK with low income jobs but also lots who make more then I could ever dream of that can't 'get by'.  Most Canadian poverty is a matter of personal choices about what, and how big/fast/new those things need to be.
Ask my 1999 Mazda 326 and my 2006 Pontiac Montana with 350,000 Kms on it if they mind still being on the road.

Too many folks want too live like rock stars on a bar bands salary, but then scream poverty......

 

[Jed]

Amazing how many folks I know that do OK with low income jobs but also lots who make more then I could ever dream of that can't 'get by'.  Most Canadian poverty is a matter of personal choices about what, and how big/fast/new those things need to be.
Ask my 1999 Mazda 326 and my 2006 Pontiac Montana with 350,000 Kms on it if they mind still being on the road.

Too many folks want too live like rock stars on a bar bands salary, but then scream poverty......

Isn't that the truth?  Piss poor life style choices with drug and alcohol abuse fuel most of the abject poverty in Canada.

 

[Good2Golf]

Amazing how many folks I know that do OK with low income jobs but also lots who make more then I could ever dream of that can't 'get by'.  Most Canadian poverty is a matter of personal choices about what, and how big/fast/new those things need to be.
Ask my 1999 Mazda 326 and my 2006 Pontiac Montana with 350,000 Kms on it if they mind still being on the road.

Too many folks want too live like rock stars on a bar bands salary, but then scream poverty......

:goodpost:

This.


...and so we get Kathleen Wynne sticking her hand out to the Feds (whom most of us support/fund, in varying degrees, as Mr. Munkhouse does) to help pay for the poor "20, 30 and 40-years olds who have a hard time saving."

So while I picked up heat in a different thread for my "Ant and the Grasshopper" fable reference, it was still just as valid then as it is now.  There are not only 'some', but 'many' who through personal choice (because they are certainly smart enough to change), spend far more on the present than they do accepting the fact that they too, could and should be part of those elements of society that responsibly and personally takes a much greater part in their own future.  Instead, woe are they, for while proportionately enjoying 'today' much more than others, they (the 'Grasshoppers') 'have a hard time' saving (paying) for their future, so the majority who are more responsible (us the 'Ants') pay for them too.

I have no issue whatsoever helping those socially who truly have a need for assistance, I have a relative who is in such need and she is exactly the kind of person whom I have no quibble assisting -- in fact, I am happy that Canada is socially, benevolent enough to make sure she is reasonably cared for (through tools such as ODSB).  Her personal needs are few, and she is not at all a "socially-funded spendthrift."  There are others, as Mr. Munkhouse refers to, who at the heart of this issue, have far less 'pure need' than they do buffer for poor choices...CHOICES!  That is where I believe that issues such as tax structure (over)complexity, balanced with a society that, albeit cyclically in Government, does not hold those who have ability and choice to account to demand less of the teats of society than they do.

That said, and in an effort to at least partially recover to the thread topic, I am happy to see at least some elements of prudence and principled thought and execution going into the Government's vetting of new Canadians (the Syrian refugees).  Now if only the new Federal Government will ease of on the fawning it does whenever Kathleen Wynne is around...

:2c:

G2G

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Because it's disgusting that some people would need to chose between paying taxes and eating food.

Do you have evidence that pulling ones municipal weight leads to poverty aside from these emotional ones?

 

[Altair]

Do you have evidence that pulling ones municipal weight leads to poverty aside from these emotional ones?

Other than the fact that those near the poverty line and those in poverty already have a hard time putting food on the table and hiking their taxes up to whatever flat rate you want so that wealthier people can save more and pay less taxes would only make things worst for them?

No. Not really. I suppose it would never happen, I apologize for bringing it up.

 

[cavalryman]

Other than the fact that those near the poverty line and those in poverty already have a hard time putting food on the table and hiking their taxes up to whatever flat rate you want so that wealthier people can save more and pay less taxes would only make things worst for them?

No. Not really. I suppose it would never happen, I apologize for bringing it up.

You do know that pretty much every flat tax proposal out there has a very generous basic exemption, much higher than today's basic exemption, so that a flat tax would have little to no effect on the lowest income earners.  What it does do, is remove the loopholes used by the higher income earners so that the flat tax applies to all of their income, not just what they weren't able to shelter, and it costs a whole lot less to administer, so that the savings can be re-invested in government programs that actually do something for Canadians, rather than use so much of the taxes raised to administer the raising of taxes.

A flat tax, properly designed to protect the most vulnerable, isn't on the table with any party simply because it removes the government's ability to conduct social engineering via the fiscal framework, reward their supporters and generate opportunities for graft.  If the left truly gave a damn about fairness, it would be in favour of a flat tax with no loopholes, deductions or other means of using tax shelters, but the left is just as enamored of graft and forcible social engineering as anyone else.  FWIW, I had absolutely no time for Harper's boutique tax incentives.

 

[Altair]

You do know that pretty much every flat tax proposal out there has a very generous basic exemption, much higher than today's basic exemption, so that a flat tax would have little to no effect on the lowest income earners.

I'm ok with that.

 

[jmt18325]

If is had a basic exemption, then it's not a real flat tax.

 

[Altair]

If is had a basic exemption, then it's not a real flat tax.

that's why I'm ok with it.

Although I can still see rich individuals consulting with their tax lawyers on how they can claim that they live in poverty.

 

[PuckChaser]

You can't force charity on people. Either you want total fairness or special interests everywhere.

 

[Journeyman]

Although I can still see rich individuals consulting with their tax lawyers on how they can claim that they live in poverty.

  :    :deadhorse: 

 

[Altair]

  :    :deadhorse:

It was meant as a joke.

You know, haha?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

You know, haha?

 

[jollyjacktar]

Nice cartoon and to the point of the pointless.

 

[Altair]

You know, haha?

not bad

 

[YZT580]

Flat taxes are the only really fair system but they do contribute heavily to unemployment.  Tax lawyers and accountants become totally redundant.  Just about everyone can subtract the basic exemption and then take 20% and yes it is a true flat tax.  The starting point is the level that provides the basic required income.

 

[Brad Sallows]

On parle du chien...

Whatever current policies are motivating Canadians to do, saving is not one of them.

Debt-to-income ratio rose to 163.7% in third quarter, Statistics Canada says

Debt-to-GDP below some arbitrary (politically determined) threshold is just a bunch of money waiting to be spent.

Debt-to-GDP ratio can come down even with deficits, economists say

Both links cbc.ca.

 

[ballz]

Flat taxes are the only really fair system but they do contribute heavily to unemployment.  Tax lawyers and accountants become totally redundant.  Just about everyone can subtract the basic exemption and then take 20% and yes it is a true flat tax.  The starting point is the level that provides the basic required income.

You are being tongue-in-cheek, right? Businesses reducing their costs for legal fees and accounting fees is going to contribute to unemployment? :facepalm:

If is had a basic exemption, then it's not a real flat tax.

You're right, but part of tax theory is that the effect of taxation is felt heaviest on the first "x" amount of income, hence the basic exemption.

If we want to get into being 100% fair and efficient, then the answer would be a lump sum tax. However, this would affect the poor in a very disproportionate way. A lump sum tax of $10,000 would be very efficient and fair (everyone pays the same amount and receives the same services), but would be incredibly onerous on those with low incomes.

 

[ballz]

You can't force charity on people. Either you want total fairness or special interests everywhere.

This comment seems very odd or hypocritical considering your positions on income-splitting and "the greater good" and whatnot from the Politics 2015 thread.