# McGuinty underestimates Ontario's high-income earners



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

I agree whole heartedly with this article even though I am far from it ever having any direct effect on me personally.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...-ontarios-high-income-earners/article2413039/

I don't know how a politician, who is supposed to be educated by advisors on economics, thinks that you can take money away from those that directly generate and grow GDP and give it to those who produce nothing or almost nothing of economic benefit, and think that somehow everything will work out well.

You must first produce the prosperity before you can distribute it. What is so difficult about that to understand. Obviously Ontario needs more properity not less.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

When was the last time McGuinty estimated _anything_ correctly.
He can't even estimate his own incompetence if he had to save his life.
His incompetence is second only to the corruption of those around him.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

I see what you're saying but then where would you propose the savings come from? The middle class has had their wallet raped quite severely over the past 20 years. We're taxed to death and inflation is running rampant (despite what the bogus inflation # the govt uses) with all these stupid fees and what not. It would seem to me the rich have more capacity to pay more, than the middle class does. The middle class is maxed out. Look elsewhere.


----------



## Xander (Apr 3, 2009)

It shouldn't be about getting more tax$$$. It should be about cutting spending and saving money as painful as it will be.
Ontario is going to run a 15 BILLION DOLLAR deficit this year!! WTF? That is almost half of the projected fereral overspending!

People on this forum, more than anybody else, should understand that you cannot spend more than you make. PERIOD.


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

I personally would not mind giving up another 2% in income if the government was also doing their share to tighten the belt.Unless you are high profile government member you should travel economy and have a reasonable meal /cab budget.BEV oda should be paying back that entire Limo expense.I go to London every year and stay at Grange Hotel ,I hire a Mercedes and driver from Addison Lee which cost me about 80GBP a day to take me to and from hotel a couple times a day.I wait 5 minutes or so for my driver to arrive rather than pay one to idle for hours in case I need to go somewhere.


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

This article talks about a tax increase on the rich in England which ended up not increasing tax revenues at all:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...rich-not-as-easy-as-it-sounds/article2405189/

The reality is that the more money one makes, the more opportunity they have to manipulate their taxes (by deferring etc).


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

The pathetic part is that not one red cent of this will go towards debt reduction.
The money supposed to be raised through this "fairness tax" has already been spent - before even 1c. has been raised.

They are over-estimating how much they will be able to raise through this, and under-estimating how much will be spent.

The deficit will not be paid down and this tax will never go away.
We are still waiting for the GST to be rolled back - 20+ years and counting.


----------



## Homerhomer (Oct 18, 2010)

the-royal-mail said:


> I see what you're saying but then where would you propose the savings come from?


Government waste and mismanagement of our money. Problem solved. All services could be managed by half the work force they have right now, add to it excessive benefits not available to almost anybody in private sector and you really have a problem solved, until then any tax hike will be wasted just like the previous were.

When I hear those jobs for life and pensions for few years on the job it drives me crazy.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Isn't this the NDP's fault? It was their price for support/abstain from voting against the budget.

It was this or an election, so I can't blame McGuinty, even though it's not the most intelligent policy.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

It is always somebody else's fault.
Mike Harris's, Stephen Harper's, NDP's, the greedy rich people's, Big Foot's, The Noch Monster.
This is just another instance in a long, long chain of fiscal mismanagement and incompetence over the years.


----------



## CanadianCapitalist (Mar 31, 2009)

An economist's take on the new tax. 

Relax, fears over Ontario tax on rich overblown



> The prevalence of wage earnings at the top income ranges undercuts the arguments that the tax inhibits ‘entrepreneurs’ or ‘job creators’ or ‘investors’.





> If you account for a realistic response to the new tax rate, my calculationssuggest that the revenue projections get knocked at least in half, closer to $250-million.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Not sure I agree. This tax was not McGuinty's idea.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

But the fact that we are in this situation to begin with is squarely McGuinty's fault.
And his cronies.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

The deficit was supposedly $5.6B when MCG took over in 2003.

How much is it now?

I rest my case.


----------



## HowIsMyFinancial (May 18, 2011)

debate of where to tax, where to cut etc will keep on going

but the fact remains and the simple truth is that public sector spending is (pretty much always) mismanaged. Starting from salaries, benefits and all kind of spendings that they do.
I've worked with companies that have crown corporations and other govt agencies as clients ... and you can easily see the amount of money they waste and blown away for nothing is nothing trivial


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

the-royal-mail said:


> The deficit was supposedly $5.6B when MCG took over in 2003.
> 
> How much is it now?
> 
> I rest my case.


By that standard, Harper is an unmitigated disaster, right?

These things are more complicated.


----------



## Jungle (Feb 17, 2010)

I'm sorry but he can't even stand up to the unions, get some balls and get in there like Rob Ford to shake things up. Nobody likes him but he sure is a lot better with the money and unions cause he's not afraid to do the right thing with money and cares less about the political crap. These are not the times where political garbage is more important, it's the time to get your affairs in order. You can play the other game when we don't have such a large expanding debt. 

And I don't feel it's right that taxing the rich is the right way to pay back the government's wreckless spending habits and years of mismanagement. 
What's worse is the tax payer love this guy and voted him in again. Can we call a non confidence on the voters? :S

Oh ya, now we will pay how much interest after this credit downgrade? I heard 10m or 10B in interest?


----------



## ddkay (Nov 20, 2010)

End the gravy train! Rob Ford for Premier!


----------



## Jungle (Feb 17, 2010)

"folks, I've asked the teacher's to take pay cuts, but they said noooooooooo! "

LOL


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

Jungle, the only reason he kept getting in was because of his blatant bribery of his vote banks such as teachers, unions and other public sector. There are enough of these people to make a deciding factor. Now that he has alienated these groups, his future victories are in jeopardy.

What he did was outright criminal.


----------



## scomac (Aug 22, 2009)

HaroldCrump said:


> It is always somebody else's fault.
> Mike Harris's, Stephen Harper's, NDP's, the greedy rich people's, Big Foot's, The Noch Monster.
> This is just another instance in a long, long chain of fiscal mismanagement and incompetence over the years.


Out of curiosity; what`s your solution?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

You know... cut waste... 'n stuff.

Sounds so easy in theory. Ford found out how hard it is in practice.


----------



## Jungle (Feb 17, 2010)

Sounds easy and yes its not. But it has to be done in these times. If not then govenment is irresponsible.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

andrewf said:


> You know... cut waste... 'n stuff.
> Sounds so easy in theory. Ford found out how hard it is in practice.


Don't put words in my mouth.
Let's start with rolling back the 28% raise the provincial MPs gave themselves back in 2008.
And then let's hear your solution...I mean other than raise taxes, increase subsidies, etc.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

My suggestions to cut spending:

Eliminate the feed in tariff program for renewable power, eliminate max classroom sizes, put user fees on highways. Those would be good places to start. There's more.

I have no advocated for net increases in tax. Any new taxes that I have supported had concomitant decreases in other, worse taxes.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

andrewf said:


> My suggestions to cut spending:
> Eliminate the feed in tariff program for renewable power, eliminate max classroom sizes, put user fees on highways. Those would be good places to start. There's more.
> I have no advocated for net increases in tax. Any new taxes that I have supported had concomitant decreases in other, worse taxes.


OK, good, so we agree that the problem lies with spending.
That's a good start.
I am in agreement with all of your suggestions - they are a great start.

However, I'm afraid, it will have only marginal impact on the humongous debt and deficit the province is running.
Over time, new programs will take their place and any temporary savings will vanish into thin air.

The biggest spending for the province (and the various municipalities) is compensation costs.
That is the 800 lb. gorilla in the room.
Unless and until we address the outrageous compensation costs, nothing can change.
It requires concrete and decisive action.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I've always said that if you have a problem with taxes, you have to address spending. Railing about the taxes is complaining about the symptom of the disease, not the disease itself.

I'm not union friendly. Especially not public sector unions.

But dealing with public sector compensation in a meaningful way to going to be an enormous battle. Constant, huge strikes. It's probably a price worth paying, but a lot of people might not agree. Too bad Hudak didn't offer his support for the budget in exchange for some concessions here. Instead, he forced McGuinty to make a deal with the NDP.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

andrewf said:


> I've always said that if you have a problem with taxes, you have to address spending.


In that, we agree.
Spending is the top #1 problem.
I advocate neither borrow-and-spend nor tax-and-spend.



> It's probably a price worth paying


So you are saying just keep giving in to their black-mail year after year?
_Don't mess with us, or else..._.

In the spring of 2009, in the midst of the worst recession in 3 generations, when millions lost their jobs, had their pay cut, etc. the Ontario teacher's union blackmailed the McGuinty _majority_ govt. to give them a 9% raise.
In 2011, an Ontario budget audit uncovered that the McGuinty administration had made an under-the-table deal with the public sector workers union for a 4% pay raise, while telling the public and the parliament that a wage freeze had been negotiated.

Just two of examples among a long, long list of fiscal mismanagement, corruption, and profligacy.

Dalton McGuinty and his administration don't have a leg to stand on.


----------



## Brenner (Jan 17, 2012)

I agree, I wont cry for the $500k individuals who will be hit with this new tax but I'd prefer a shrinking of the pie. A bigger pie leads to bigger spending. How many times has a new tax been proposed as temporary that has actually been temporary? Haven't we paid off WW1 yet, and cut personal income taxes? When given the choice to pay $1 of debt or maintain $1 of spending they will choose the spending more often then not and nothing will happen with the debt.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

There is a fundamental law of public administration, similar to the fundamental laws of physics:
_Government spending will always auto-expand to consume all possible revenue_

That is why temporary tax is an oxymoron.


----------



## blin10 (Jun 27, 2011)

taxing rich more is def not the solution, they can just incorporate in states or elsewhere and pay 0 to Canada... also you don't touch people who make it happen, if you do everyone else will suffer


----------



## Brenner (Jan 17, 2012)

meh I am not really a believer in the trickle down effect either that Bush was touting in the states. I don't think it will have a significant impact on where people decide to setup up shop. I just don't buy the "temp" tax as a solution to what is a systemic government spending problem.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

The overall problem is the economy. If we could get Ontario booming, all its problems would shrink dramatically. My main complaint about this new tax is all fundamental. Politically it always seems right to tax the rich and then inevitably give it to the more numerous poor. Hey their rich and they should be happy to give some of it back.

Well, here's a newsflash. They would be. Instead of taxing some guy 30% on the $1,000,000 he earned last year, I want to see that guy's tax rate get reduced to 25%, and then watch him make $3,000,000 next year. That is definitely going to help out a poor guy like myself, a lot more then what McGuinty and the NDP came up with.


----------

