Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

High Taxes Send Companies Away


Recommended Posts

How long will it take for the people in this country to realize that you can't continue to tax and spend without damaging our economy. The motivated people will take their wealth elsewhere. According to stats can. offshore investment has increased 8X to 88 Billion since 1990. That includes our PM's ( :( ) offshore holdings. Still Canadians cry for a nanny state to provide wasteful government programs. The government must cut taxes if Canadians want to maintain their way of life. If not there will be no one left to tax.

Jack Mintz, president and chief executive of the C.D. Howe Institute, said the StatsCan study underscores the reality that "we're not as attractive enough as a country for foreign investment, and that's a concern."

Mr. Mintz said it is not suprising Canadian investment in tax havens has jumped in recent years, given that Canada has one of the highest corporate tax rates among industrialized countries.

Post

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The motivated people will take their wealth elsewhere.

Anybody who leaves Canada with an education before paying at least 5 years of taxes should have to refund their tax-supported free ride.

I think I agree with you Sweal. But only where the government provides significant funding. The only problem is the first 5 years of employment usually don't provide a lot of taxible income. This is why there needs to be tax incentives for people to stay. This also does not fix this issue of corporations taking their wealth and jobs overseas.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anybody who leaves Canada with an education before paying at least 5 years of taxes should have to refund their tax-supported free ride.

Shouldn't anyone coming to Canada with an education receive "at least 5 years" worth of tax cash?

Furthermore, let's see if this scenario is accurate. The government mandates that anybody up to the age of 16 must attend school. Then when a person reaces 16, the government tells him that he must pay "at least 5 years of taxes" to repay them for the education they forced him to take?

Sounds like a protection racket to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Anyone who recieves government funding, loans, Metis grants etc. for a post-secondary education should be required to repay that money should they choose to move out of the country. This would be easy. Before you get any government education subsidies you must sign a contract that if you leave the country you must pay for your education.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyone who recieves government funding, loans, Metis grants etc. for a post-secondary education

Pre-secondary education is worthless? I beg to differ. Canada's pre-secondary education is crucial to our economic state. As most of the third world knows, it's hard to have a modern economy when your population is mostly illiterate.

Before you get any government education subsidies you must sign a contract that if you leave the country you must pay for your education.

Does that mean that if you stay in the country and never get a job that pays more than the income tax threshold, you don't have to pay for your education? That doesn't seem fair. Would it not be better to make every student pay for his own education up-front? And if he can't, then borrow? That way, everyone pays what they owe, and where you go is not relevant - debts are debts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Shouldn't anyone coming to Canada with an education receive "at least 5 years" worth of tax cash?

I don't konw what you mean by should here. People come here or not based on whatever incentives they percieve. Are you saying we should try to improve the incentives for educated immigrants to come? If so, there are probably more effective measures available.

Link to post
Share on other sites
IMR never said anything of the sort! Hugo, what the F... are you talking about?

Since he specifically states that only post-secondary education need be paid for, it seems that he is inferring that pre-secondary education is worthless, since only that which is worthless need not be paid for. If he did not feel that way, then why exclude pre-secondary education? Why not just say "education"?

I don't konw what you mean by should here. People come here or not based on whatever incentives they percieve. Are you saying we should try to improve the incentives for educated immigrants to come?

That's not what I am arguing.

Let me put it another way. The state invests in the education of Canadians believing that they will get a return in the form of taxes. If they leave, they want that investment back. If that is fair, then it should also be fair that the state pay immigrants who have already been educated, since they are getting the benefits (taxes) without the cost (education). Otherwise, the state is freeloading, just as surely as those who get their education and then emigrate are freeloading. If freeloading is wrong, it shouldn't matter who does it since a crime is a crime no matter who commits it, which is why the goddess of justice wears a blindfold.

Perhaps the immigrants can give the money back to their government who might be billing them for their education. We might end up with a situation where governments could bid for immigrants in such a way, and "buy" citizens from one another.

Link to post
Share on other sites
IMR never said anything of the sort! Hugo, what the F... are you talking about?

Since he specifically states that only post-secondary education need be paid for, it seems that he is inferring that pre-secondary education is worthless, ...

!!!!

And here I thought it was only me you used blatantly false distortionary tactics with. Well, it's good to know I'm not alone, but it sucks that making up shitty lies is something you do all the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And here I thought it was only me you used blatantly false distortionary tactics with.

Oh. So he didn't deliberately exclude pre-secondary education from his proposition? Let's take a look:

Anyone who recieves government funding, loans, Metis grants etc. for a post-secondary education should be required to repay that money should they choose to move out of the country.

Nope! Looks like he only thinks post-secondary education is worth repaying. Are we sure, though? Let's take another look!

Anyone who recieves government funding, loans, Metis grants etc. for a post-secondary education should be required to repay that money should they choose to move out of the country.

No, that's definitely what he said! Perhaps we can ask Greg to bring the original post out of the archives, just in case IMR went back and edited his post after I told a "sh***y lie" about it to make his post match my lie, so that I wouldn't be embarrassed! Do you want to ask Greg, or should I?

Link to post
Share on other sites

okay well, how bad is this probablem IMR?

For instance if we average out the percentage of total income that goes to taxes for all canadian Families it sits at a little over 16% in America the number sits at 14%, so on average Canadians give up 2% more of their income for taxes then Americans.

For lets say the upper middle class 50K-100K(U.S) the difference amounts to 5.3% more of your total income, that would be what $3,700-4,000 more on average? I don't mean to be disrespectfull but any one who values $3,700 more than closeness to their family may, in some cases, have their priorities out of whack, just maybe in some cases. For the heavy hitters those who earn above $150,000 a year on average there is a difference of 5.2%

again this is not the astronomical difference you are suggesting exists.

So the question then is how many petty people have been leaving Canada and to what sort of degree and with what sort of degree. At the Masters and doctorate level the same amount leaving canada have been comming in. Obviously the arguement is that the degree quality is different between those leaving and those comming in. Now those leaving earn more money than those comming in so I suppose that the quality of those leaving may be higher. However how many people are leaving Canada and how many are leaving Canada permanentley? well apparently 34% plan to return to Canada, and statistics indicate that 20% do actually return. So how many people actually leave? 5,000 people per year, far from the end of the world but a decent amount, I suppose.

However, lets say Canada is drastically short of skilled electricians, what is going to happen? Well the wages an employer is willing to pay for the scarce resource of electricians should theoretically go up, therefore more engineers can be retained in Canada as the difference in money will decrease and maybe even be eliminated, I suppose it will fix itself jsut like the environment, right IMR?

As for buisneses, well KPMG, found that Canada was the cheapest country in the G-7 to run a buisness in...and about 10% cheaper than America, so when we talk about how taxes contribute to the high cost of runing a buisness in Canada lets not get carried away, IMR. After all it appears the high cost of running a buisness in Canada really is not much of a factor. Now of course their will be an increase in money invested over seas it is simply more profitable to invest in developing countries....this is not something unique to Canada, this is something that happens everywhere even in your mothership America. When you are one of the most developed countries in the world you will find it more profitable to invest in a country that is benifieting from the catch up affect, nothing special and nothing unique to Canada. This phenomenon of higher and ever incresing foriegn investment is something that occurs in the highly developed elite countries of the world.

Link to post
Share on other sites
For instance if we average out the percentage of total income that goes to taxes for all canadian Families it sits at a little over 16% in America the number sits at 14%, so on average Canadians give up 2% more of their income for taxes then Americans.

And if we factor in what we get from the government in services such as healthcare; I would say we are financially ahead and can feel more secure that we will not have to sell everything up to and including the kitchen sink to pay for necessary health care (if we are lucky enough to have enough to sell to cover the costs)

Hugo; you are purposely using distorted "logic" in your arguments. Try arguing on real logic eh.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hugo; you are purposely using distorted "logic" in your arguments. Try arguing on real logic eh.

There's nothing distorted about my logic. Reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly acceptable strategy that has been used since classical Greek philosophy was being hashed out. I simply draw IMR's argument to it's logical conclusion to show that it is a nonsense. Sometimes people miss that because they haven't looked at the big picture.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hugo; you are purposely using distorted "logic" in your arguments. Try arguing on real logic eh.

There's nothing distorted about my logic. Reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly acceptable strategy ...

But what you did was different. You took IMR's statement, interprteted it unreasonably, attributed that unreasonable interpretation to IMR, and set it up as a strawman to apply reductio ad absurdam to.

No-one enjoys that crap.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When you look at the basic tax structure in Canada in regards to what we charge business, it is not more than the United States. To be perfectly clear, if you take into account the % of tax placed on businesses the USA hit 40% and Canada comes in at around 36%. If you add in the money Canadian companies use on health care though they become essentially equal.

What really is driving companies away is not so much our taxes but the lack of fair taxation elsewhere. The globalized economy is just killing us and really we can't decrease taxes low enough to stop the drive of some companies to other nations.

For example, for every one working a company in Canada employs it could employ 15 in China. Not to mention China's environment standards...umm...wait...lack of standards.

It is just impossible to say what Canada can do in terms of lowering taxes because whether they decrease or not we still will be at a disadvantage if companies want to make the move.

China is changing everything. They are buying up the worlds raw materials and forcing the dollar up. We are in big trouble here and it is something that lower taxes cannot help.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You took IMR's statement, interprteted it unreasonably, attributed that unreasonable interpretation to IMR, and set it up as a strawman to apply reductio ad absurdam to.

Where? Demonstrate.

Allow me to refresh your memory:

So he didn't deliberately exclude pre-secondary education from his proposition? Let's take a look:

Anyone who recieves government funding, loans, Metis grants etc. for a post-secondary education should be required to repay that money should they choose to move out of the country.

Nope! Looks like he only thinks post-secondary education is worth repaying. Are we sure, though? Let's take another look!

Anyone who recieves government funding, loans, Metis grants etc. for a post-secondary education should be required to repay that money should they choose to move out of the country.

No, that's definitely what he said! Perhaps we can ask Greg to bring the original post out of the archives, just in case IMR went back and edited his post after I told a "sh***y lie" about it to make his post match my lie, so that I wouldn't be embarrassed! Do you want to ask Greg, or should I?

Any response to this, yet?

Link to post
Share on other sites
You took IMR's statement, interprteted it unreasonably, attributed that unreasonable interpretation to IMR, and set it up as a strawman to apply reductio ad absurdam to.

Where? Demonstrate.

Are you insane?

IMR said:

Anyone who recieves government funding, loans, Metis grants etc. for a post-secondary education should be required to repay that money should they choose to move out of the country.

You replied:

Pre-secondary education is worthless? I beg to differ.

But IMR had never said a word about pre-secondary education. You fabricated his alleged stance agains pre-secondary education out of thin air.

Knock that kind of stuff of. It's a sleazy, annoying way to behave.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You took IMR's statement, interprteted it unreasonably, attributed that unreasonable interpretation to IMR, and set it up as a strawman to apply reductio ad absurdam to.

Where? Demonstrate.

Are you insane?

IMR said:

Anyone who recieves government funding, loans, Metis grants etc. for a post-secondary education should be required to repay that money should they choose to move out of the country.

You replied:

Pre-secondary education is worthless? I beg to differ.

But IMR had never said a word about pre-secondary education. You fabricated his alleged stance agains pre-secondary education out of thin air.

Knock that kind of stuff of. It's a sleazy, annoying way to behave.

What the hell Hugo :blink: ? True I did not mention pre-secondary education. I also didn't mention pre-school and piano lessons. What inferences can you draw from that? That I hate music and little kids? And what's this about asking Greg to see if I edited my post? :blink: The fact that two people, who usually disagree with me on everything, are defending me against your insanity should tell you something. I'm just glad guns aren't legal in Canada, what inferences can you draw from that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
okay well, how bad is this probablem IMR?

For instance if we average out the percentage of total income that goes to taxes for all canadian Families it sits at a little over 16% in America the number sits at 14%, so on average Canadians give up 2% more of their income for taxes then Americans.

For lets say the upper middle class 50K-100K(U.S) the difference amounts to 5.3% more of your total income, that would be what $3,700-4,000 more on average?again this is not the astronomical difference you are suggesting exists.

Slavic, I'm not sure what source you get your numbers from but it looks like data manipulation to me. In comparison to the USA Canadians bear a much higher tax burden. For instance the lowest income bracket in the US ends at $70,000 and is taxed 15%. In Canada the lowest bracket ends at $30,000 and is taxed at 16%. That is a huge burden. You also need to take into account the value of the US dollar which historically has gone further than the Canadian dollar. The US provides far more tax incentives and write offs than the US. You can write off your mortgage payments!, your vehicle, your kids etc etc. All make a huge difference in the personal tax burden. Of all the G8 countries Canada has the highest tax burden. Of the world Canada is the 5th highest taxed country behind Scandanavia. That's insane, we remain competitive or even productive at this rate. With Canadian's real income not improving since 1990, sooner or later the bubble is going to burst. Canadians are losing their motivation to be productive. There is a growing movement of people who are choosing to work less so as to lower their tax burden. They prefer not working at all to working for the government.

Full US and International Tax Comparison

I don't mean to be disrespectfull but any one who values $3,700 more than closeness to their family may, in some cases, have their priorities out of whack, just maybe in some cases.

I agree, which is the main reason I still live here. However, I think you underestimate human nature. See Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But IMR had never said a word about pre-secondary education. You fabricated his alleged stance agains pre-secondary education out of thin air.

Look at these two statements:

1) People have a right to healthcare.

2) White people have a right to healthcare.

Is there no difference between them? I think you might say that technically, there isn't, but there's an implied statement in the second (i.e. non-whites have no right to healthcare) which, if the author took the time to specify "white people", was almost certainly intentional.

True I did not mention pre-secondary education. I also didn't mention pre-school and piano lessons.

The difference with those would be that parents pay for them up-front, whereas compulsory pre-secondary education is publicly funded. So one can assume that you don't include pre-school and piano lessons because they don't fall into public education, unlike pre-secondary and the post-secondary education you refer to.

Anyway, what's your answer to the question? Why should emigrants only need to pay for post-secondary education, when they received pre-secondary education as well?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eureka

Slavik is right and, it seems, some will never put truth before ideology.Some months ago, I posted on one thread or other that Canada's total tax burden from all sources as a percentage of National Income, was 36% in a gairly recent year.

In the United States, the rate was 30%.

However, the American rate does not consider those things that are provided from taxes in Canada such as heathcare.

The reality is that Canada is one of the lower taxed jurisdictions and the US is not one whit better.

There is also the much lower tax rate at the lower 50% of the Canadian tax scale. The average Canadian probably pays less taxes and is better off. While Canada is a more competitive economy in terms of cost attractiveness for business.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Slavik is right and, it seems, some will never put truth before ideology.Some months ago, I posted on one thread or other that Canada's total tax burden from all sources as a percentage of National Income, was 36% in a gairly recent year.

In the United States, the rate was 30%.

The reality is that Canada is one of the lower taxed jurisdictions and the US is not one whit better.

There is also the much lower tax rate at the lower 50% of the Canadian tax scale. The average Canadian probably pays less taxes and is better off. While Canada is a more competitive economy in terms of cost attractiveness for business.

Where are you getting this. Seriously.

Please read:

USA Tax Comparison

However, the American rate does not consider those things that are provided from taxes in Canada such as heathcare.

While I won't omit the serious problem that 1/5 of Americans do not have health care coverage, 80% of Americans still recieve better health care coverage than Canadians. A cost covered by both the US government and private corporations. (But let's leave the health care debate to another thread)

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...