Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

1) Should women pay a higher percentage of their income into CPP/RRQ?

On average, women live longer than men and so women receive more pension payments than men. (Simply put: Many working men die before age 65, never receiving any pension at all.)

2) Should men in general pay higher taxes?

(Because of childbirth, women bear a greater burden than men in lost wages.)

3) Should female same-sex couples (without children) pay more tax than male same-sex couples (with children)?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Bonam said:

No, and none of these kinds of questions are worth thinking about it. Treat everyone as an individual, period. 

But how to assess taxes? "Treat everyone as an individual, period."

You mean: tax an infant? Should parents pay tax for children in a household?

IOW: What is the tax unit: the individual or household?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, August1991 said:

But how to assess taxes? "Treat everyone as an individual, period."

You mean: tax an infant? Should parents pay tax for children in a household?

IOW: What is the tax unit: the individual or household?

Tax is assessed on income (and sales, property, etc), not on people. Unless the infant is working, they don't pay tax. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bonam said:

Tax is assessed on income (and sales, property, etc), not on people. Unless the infant is working, they don't pay tax. 

Make no mistake, an individual - a living person - writes a cheque to pay tax to the government.

The question is how to determine what amount to pay.

1. Should a woman pay more tax than a man - since women live longer and receive more State benefits.

2. Should a man pay more tax than a woman - since women suffer more the cost of child-bearing.

3. In same-sex couples, how to assess these taxes? For example, should two women living together (without a child) have lower taxes than two men (with a child)? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

My wife began to lose the use of her legs in December. After a very short waiting period, she saw a neurologist who had her admitted to hospital in an hour. She had an MRI the next morning and a week later she had a benign tumour removed from her spinal cord and, after a second MRI, she was transferred to the rehabilitation ward. She is now home and almost completely recovered. Without SaskHealth, we would have been in bankruptcy within two weeks. I love paying my taxes. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

My wife began to lose the use of her legs in December. After a very short waiting period, she saw a neurologist who had her admitted to hospital in an hour. She had an MRI the next morning and a week later she had a benign tumour removed from her spinal cord and, after a second MRI, she was transferred to the rehabilitation ward. She is now home and almost completely recovered. Without SaskHealth, we would have been in bankruptcy within two weeks. I love paying my taxes. 

Not the same story here in Ontario. Even though we pay McGuinty's "not a tax, it's a health levy", that goes straight into general revenues.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/22/2018 at 10:33 AM, Goddess said:

Here's my idea to simplify the tax code:

1.  How much money did you make this year?

2.  How much did you spend?

3.  How much do you have left?

4.  Send it in.

:lol:

You propose a tax on saving. Ugh.

Is it any wonder that even Trump is reducing the corporate tax?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/22/2018 at 3:23 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

My wife began to lose the use of her legs in December. After a very short waiting period, she saw a neurologist who had her admitted to hospital in an hour. She had an MRI the next morning and a week later she had a benign tumour removed from her spinal cord and, after a second MRI, she was transferred to the rehabilitation ward. She is now home and almost completely recovered. Without SaskHealth, we would have been in bankruptcy within two weeks. I love paying my taxes. 

First, I wish your wife well.

But second, is this care that your wife received "sustainable"? Will people in Saskatchewan in the future receive the same care as your wife?

Third, who created the technology to care for your wife?

======

Queenmandy, you seem to view health (as most people, even me) as sometimes a life and death issue. For politicians and bureaucrats and insurance-types, it's not. For them, it's a numbers game.

Edited by August1991
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, August1991 said:

Queenmandy, you seem to view health (as most people, even me) as sometimes a life and death issue. For politicians and bureaucrats and insurance-types, it's not. For them, it's a numbers game.

As long as we watch the numbers closely, and educate ourselves about how it all works we will collectively keep them honest.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/22/2018 at 3:19 AM, August1991 said:

Make no mistake, an individual - a living person - writes a cheque to pay tax to the government.

The question is how to determine what amount to pay.

1. Should a woman pay more tax than a man - since women live longer and receive more State benefits.

2. Should a man pay more tax than a woman - since women suffer more the cost of child-bearing.

3. In same-sex couples, how to assess these taxes? For example, should two women living together (without a child) have lower taxes than two men (with a child)? 

I think your notion is incorrect.  Women should simply save more for those later years. Paying more taxes does not put the money back in your pocket for retirement, never has, never will.

You'd be better off going with women need to invest more into savings because they end up living longer than men.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/22/2018 at 5:04 AM, AngusThermopyle said:

A silly premise. Our taxation system is already an out of control labyrinthine monster. You would propose increasing it's complexity? Just out and out silly. Here's an idea, since politicians are so fond of creating new taxes they should pay the lions share instead.

Greg, I hate this current forum software.

It was far, far, far better before. Pls, keep it simple. 

On 3/22/2018 at 5:04 AM, AngusThermopyle said:

A silly premise. Our taxation system is already an out of control labyrinthine monster. You would propose increasing it's complexity? Just out and out silly. Here's an idea, since politicians are so fond of creating new taxes they should pay the lions share instead.

I tend to agree.

Years ago, I recall an economist describing our tax system as a black hat with numbers: pull a number, that's your tax rate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎3‎/‎22‎/‎2018 at 10:33 AM, Goddess said:

Here's my idea to simplify the tax code:

1.  How much money did you make this year?

2.  How much did you spend?

3.  How much do you have left?

4.  Send it in.

:lol:

Look up Hollywood Accounting sometime. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
On ‎22‎/‎03‎/‎2018 at 1:42 AM, August1991 said:

1) Should women pay a higher percentage of their income into CPP/RRQ?

On average, women live longer than men and so women receive more pension payments than men. (Simply put: Many working men die before age 65, never receiving any pension at all.)

2) Should men in general pay higher taxes?

(Because of childbirth, women bear a greater burden than men in lost wages.)

3) Should female same-sex couples (without children) pay more tax than male same-sex couples (with children)?

 

First I would like to distinguish that gender equity in regards to pay is meant to bring wages together (male and female) for same work perform, then the tax and other deduction follows - equal treatment.

The argument is expanded.  Since there is a discrepancy in the wages, women making less, overall then, women will work longer in order to match the amounts of taxes men pay.  Therefore they need to live longer to make equal tax and equal pension.  The wage discrepancy also explain that a pension contribution of 7% from women and employer is different from 7% from men and employer for the same job.

WHO 2015 data shows in Canada life expectance Male 80.2, female 84.1. 

We can say then that the tax system helps to determine when we can die.  This is just a view based on the conversation.

 

 

Edited by RB
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...