2407 replies to this topic

[Fletch 27]

YES! The Coalition of the brain-dead! I have stated all along that this coalition of the handicapped has a Hidden Agenda!! ITS OUTED!!!!!!!!!!

It was the NDP...

[Michael Hardner]

YES! The Coalition of the brain-dead! I have stated all along that this coalition of the handicapped has a Hidden Agenda!! ITS OUTED!!!!!!!!!!

Fletch - see the Rules and Guidelines on insults.

[CPCFTW]

90,000 for a household is not rich. If 2 people bring in that much thats 180,000. That is pretty well off for an average family of four. I'd say start the higher tax rates at around 250,000 per household, progressively increasing for each half million over that. Randomly pulled those numbers from the sky but sounds like a reasonable place to start.

First we need a new election because it gets more and more obvious everyday that the election fraud robocalls were engineered by the Harper Conservatives.

No one taxes based on household income. What kind of commie nonsense is this?

[CPCFTW]

There is a limit. Currently in Canada it's 29 percent on income over 139k. So on your 300k taxable (don't forget all your tax breaks) income you would be paying about 76k in taxes for an effective rate of 25%. That's too low.

I would say being in the top 5% qualifies as being rich. But that of course somebody that's super rich should pay a higher percentage of their income than somebody that just squeaked into the rich category. Or income tax brackets top out at 29% for income over 130,000. We need higher brackets for higher incomes.

Yes 29% to the federal government in income taxes... plus 10-16% (or 21% in NS) to the provincial governments. That is 39-45% (or 50% in NS) of your income going to government already.

Then you have property taxes, and sales taxes (5 to 15%).

People making over 130k in employment income are generally already paying over 50% of their income in total taxes to the government.

People with taxable investment income already paid (or their parents paid) taxes on the money they are investing, and are paying smaller additional taxes on top of that.

Why don't you do a little more research before plotting to reform society?

Edited by CPCFTW, 26 May 2012 - 12:56 PM.

[CPCFTW]

There is a limit. Currently in Canada it's 29 percent on income over 139k. So on your 300k taxable (don't forget all your tax breaks) income you would be paying about 76k in taxes for an effective rate of 25%. That's too low.

What "tax breaks" would those be? Makes for a nice sound bite though, doesn't it?

Add this to your research list, then get back to me so that I can explain the economic (and moral) reasoning behind any so-called "breaks" in taxes for the wealthy.

Edited by CPCFTW, 26 May 2012 - 01:01 PM.

[madmax]

What "tax breaks" would those be? Makes for a nice sound bite though, doesn't it?

Add this to your research list, then get back to me so that I can explain the economic (and moral) reasoning behind any so-called "breaks" in taxes for the wealthy.

My Friend just had his taxes done in April and was complaining.

He paid $60,000
He made just over $300,000

Edited by madmax, 26 May 2012 - 01:13 PM.

[CPCFTW]

My Friend just had his taxes done in April and was complaining.

He paid $60,000
He made just over $300,000

Sweet meaningless anecdote.

And 60k is a lot more taxes than most people will ever pay in taxes. I'm sure he has every right to complain about those taxes.. You won't pay just 60k on 300k in personal employment income, so he must have some kind of investment income (and he has presumably already paid taxes on the income required to get the capital to make that investment).

I never denied there are tax breaks. But the tax breaks that are available are designed to encourage investment/savings, and make it worthwhile for investors to take an investment risk.

The personal tax breaks that the left loves to complain about also have very little effect on government tax revenues. This may come as a surprise, but there are not that many people in Canada like your friend.

Edited by CPCFTW, 26 May 2012 - 03:31 PM.

[bleeding heart]

My Friend just had his taxes done in April and was complaining.

He paid $60,000
He made just over $300,000

20% is too high!


Hell, any amount is too high!

[jacee]

Yes 29% to the federal government in income taxes... plus 10-16% (or 21% in NS) to the provincial governments. That is 39-45% (or 50% in NS) of your income going to government already.

Then you have property taxes, and sales taxes (5 to 15%).

People making over 130k in employment income are generally already paying over 50% of their income in total taxes to the government.

People with taxable investment income already paid (or their parents paid) taxes on the money they are investing, and are paying smaller additional taxes on top of that.

Why don't you do a little more research before plotting to reform society?

People with investment income are taxed on the earnings, not the capital.

[CPCFTW]

People with investment income are taxed on the earnings, not the capital.

What's your point?

The capital didn't appear out of nowhere. It was earned and taxes were paid on those earnings.

[punked]

What's your point?

The capital didn't appear out of nowhere. It was earned and taxes were paid on those earnings.

Yah it didn't come out of no where. They inherited that money fair and square because their great great grandparents worked very hard to generate that money so their kids, grand kids, and great grand kids could pay less taxes then every other citizens. They will pass on the capital investment after they have lived off it as well.

Edited by punked, 27 May 2012 - 10:29 AM.

[Bryan]

My Friend just had his taxes done in April and was complaining.

He paid $60,000
He made just over $300,000

$60,000 is a lot of money for one person to pay in income taxes, regardless of what percentage that might be.

[bleeding heart]

$60,000 is a lot of money for one person to pay in income taxes, regardless of what percentage that might be.

OK, but the percentage matters more.

$6 000 from $30 000 is more profound than $60 000 from $300 000. The former gets hurt more, so that's the direction in which rational sympathy would move.

[Bryan]

OK, but the percentage matters more.

No it doesn't. You don't know what the higher earner's expenses and liabilities are. 60 grand is a LOT of money, anyone who pays that much in federal income tax is already more than paying their share.

$6 000 from $30 000 is more profound than $60 000 from $300 000. The former gets hurt more, so that's the direction in which rational sympathy would move.

No. $60,000 is more profound, regardless of what income level it's drawn from. People who work hard to create more income should be rewarded for it, not punished. They'd still be paying a lot more in actual tax dollars if the percentages were the same, they should not have to also pay a higher percentage on top of that.

[cybercoma]

$60,000 is a lot of money for one person to pay in income taxes, regardless of what percentage that might be.

What a silly claim. Someone makes $6 million in a year and you would still say $60,000 is a lot?