# Who do you think deserve a reduction in taxes?



## slacker (Mar 8, 2010)

Who do you think deserve a reduction in taxes? Someone like you? or someone other than you? Or no change is desired?

If you think you or others deserve a tax break, feel free to elaborate why. Thanks.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I think it's the wrong question, but I'll see what other people think.

I'm going to go ahead and guess that everyone is going to want tax cuts for themselves and spending cuts on the programs everyone else likes.


----------



## Square Root (Jan 30, 2010)

Not sure what you hope to learn by this poll? More of a rhetorical question I think?


----------



## crazyjackcsa (Aug 8, 2010)

Dumb question.
I like pie. And we all know pie eaters deserve a tax reduction on the purchasing and creation of pie. Let them eat Pie!


----------



## financialnoob (Feb 26, 2011)

andrewf said:


> I think it's the wrong question, but I'll see what other people think.
> 
> I'm going to go ahead and guess that everyone is going to want tax cuts for themselves and spending cuts on the programs everyone else likes.


+1. Who wouldn't want more money? Especially in a forum focused on finances?


----------



## slacker (Mar 8, 2010)

Base on the posts I've seen recently, I'm not so sure it's so straight and clear. Plenty of people are saying that the middle class needs a tax break, others are saying the poor could use more breaks.

The question isn't who wants a tax reduction. The question is does our country function better if we modify the tax load distribution. We all stand to benefit with a stronger Canada.


----------



## sprocket1200 (Aug 21, 2009)

everyone. we just need to get rid of the debt, then everyone will be able to benefit from the interest expense that is freed up... free money!


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Seeing how we are in deficit, I don't think anyone should get a tax cut. What we need is a benefit reduction for the poor. You would be surprised at how many less of them we would have if we did that.

You don't solve poverty by giving away money, you create it.


----------



## twowheeled (Jan 15, 2011)

take away tax brackets, everyone should pay the same income tax. Raise GST/HST to compensate. Why should the people who work harder to earn more income be punished for it, while people flipping burgers get a break?


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

This poll doesn't really add any information in terms of how it's worded. Its based on your own personal reference point, and without stating what people like you means, it could mean everything, some with others. It implies that if when don't think people like ourselves, or other not like are selves should get the tax break, that everything is fine.

In terms of who deserves the taxes, it's too simplistic of a view to name one group or another. There are difference reasons to have different taxes. Depending on your point of view, each one has merit.

Sure give it to the poor as they 'need' it the most. Or don't as it keeps a vicious cycle of poverty going. 

Take it from the rich because they can 'afford' it, or give them a break because they are the backbone to the funding, and if you dont throw them a bone every so often, they may just ticked off, and leave. 

Everyone wants full services, but no one wants to pay for them. If you do it through govt, then tax hikes bring screaming, but reduction of service does too. Then let's go to how about those who want to pay for their own health care (ei. Privatization of healthcare, private schools), then you start screaming the only the rich will get care. What is the point of having money, when you're constantly paying for everyone else that doesn't have as much. 

There are some very legitimate reasons why people don't have money (illness, disability, new immigrants, etc), however there are many more excuses on why someone can't make more or save more. I struggle with sympathy for those who are in their situation because of bad choices that they have made in there lives, and expect others to pay for them. My impression, and it could be wrong is that many of the people that are considered poor have made poor choices that have lead them to be where they are now.

I'm sure someone will flame me for being unsympathic, elitist, etc. I volunteer at a homeless shelter and soup kitchen, my children are charity right from the start. We donate to charities and causes we believe in. Last year, we choose to 'sponsor' a family we knew trying to get a start in Canada through cash, and many other donations, as I personally understand their work ethic and struggles. I have been helping my nanny (immigrant) understand money, and finances, and this has expanded to all of her friends, etc. 

I just see so many people complain about money, but will do little to better their situation in terms of making sacrifices. Why is it that I make more sarcrifices yet, the others get more help?


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

I am ok with the taxes I pay , what I would like to see happen is more help to disabled people or parents raising disabled kids.A system that would provide for people going through cancer treatments,giving them some sort of income.My neighbor has breast cancer for over 2 years and was mother to a 2 year old and 5 year old when she got sick.Even with her parents helping out every day this has been a financially devastating time for the family.Until Angie got sick I never understood how long breast cancer treatment could go on or how sick a person could be all the time.She now has to go through breast reconstruction but is not strong enough to endure the surgeries yet.
She worked full time but other than sick benefits from EI she got no help.For the record I have a disability and have been using a wheelchair for 14 years.My husband and I are fortunate we can paid for everything ourselves.God help me if we could not.


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

I agree many 'poor' people or those receiving social service probably should not be getting that money.They have money to smoke , drink and gamble but then cry they can't feed their kids.Too bad they could not set up a system to pay the rent direct to landlord and give them prepaid cards for grocery store and not allow any Cigerettes,alcohol or lottery to be paid.have very minimum cash payments to them at least then kids have food and shelter.


----------



## twowheeled (Jan 15, 2011)

while I agree there should be breaks for the disabled and sick, how do we differentiate between those who are unfortunate, vs those who have eaten junk food, smoked cigarettes, liquor, chosen an unhealthy lifestyle and depend on a safety net to catch them? I sympathize with those who are seriously ill, but if I personally fell ill I would not expect any sort of monetary assistance from those outside my immediate family.


----------



## ChrisR (Jul 13, 2009)

The question seems to be more of a psychology question than a finance question. ie. how many people would give the tax break to others, and how many would keep the tax break for themselves?

From an actual finance point of view, I believe in a progressive tax system where people pay based on their ability. On the other hand I get pretty angered over directed tax breaks. 
- People with kids need a tax break?
- People whose kids play sports need a tax break?
- People who go to school (so they can make a lot of money) need a tax break? (Despite the fact that most of them aren't actually paying any taxes right now anyway?)
- People buying their first house need a tax break?
- People who put in granite countertops need a tax break?

Ok, I admit, people who care for disabled family members probably do need a tax break.


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

Sick is sick doesn't matter how you got there.And it is easy for all of us to say we will take care of ourselves and our family as most of us here are fairly well off .Well enough off we need to join a money forum to talk about what to do without money.
Again easy for us to say it when we are not the one going these things .


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

I voted for "no change" because it was the least objectionable of the three. We're running a deficit so it isn't the right time to talk about tax cuts. We should probably be talking about tax increases - perhaps a reversal of the last GST tax cut. 

It isn't the time to cut government spending either. That will weaken or reverse our economic recovery.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

twowheeled said:


> take away tax brackets, everyone should pay the same income tax. Raise GST/HST to compensate. Why should the people who work harder to earn more income be punished for it, while people flipping burgers get a break?


I think you're making the mistake that rich people necessarily work harder. Do you think a CEO making $10 million a year is working 500 times harder than the burger flipper? That's hard to believe.

Some of the difference in income is due to our endowed skills and abilities. Some people win the genetic lottery and have good health, intelligence, etc. that allow them to succeed in well-paying careers. I don't agree with social darwinism where we should let the poor rot.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

olivaw said:


> It isn't the time to cut government spending either. That will weaken or reverse our economic recovery.


Right, let's wait until the budget deficit is like that of the US and then we can start cutting, just as they decided to do this weekend.
Until then, let's party like there's no tomorrow.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I think there's room for spending cuts. If they cut funding for political parties, they should cut all three subsidies (not just the per-vote subsidy, which is the least-objectionable in my book), as well as the public funding for 10 percenters (those annoying absurdly partisan flyers you get in the mail from an MP across the country are 100% funded by government). Aside from this trivial stuff, I wouldn't mind legalizing and regulating pot. That should raise a billion or two in taxes and probably save a billion or two in reduced court load and getting all those minor drug offenses out of prison. It also robs organized crime of a huge cash stream. Maybe this is where the mystery $4 billion in savings is coming from.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> Right, let's wait until the budget deficit is like that of the US and then we can start cutting, just as they decided to do this weekend.
> Until then, let's party like there's no tomorrow.


Harold, I'm not suggesting new spending, I'm not suggesting a return to the tax and spend nonsense of the 70s and 80s either. I'm suggesting that we focus on balancing our federal and provincial budgets. We'll all have to pay our share. Unfortunately that may mean BOTH higher taxes and reduced spending. I'd simply prefer that we waited until the economic recovery was more robust before we get carried away with spending cuts that may do more economic harm than good. 

Canada's debt represents 62.3% of GDP. America's debt is 60.8%.  I wish our politicians would stop telling us how well we're doing. 

Not sure what you mean by "party likes there's no tomorrow". It's our collective tomorrow that worries me.


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

andrewf said:


> I think there's room for spending cuts. If they cut funding for political parties, they should cut all three subsidies (not just the per-vote subsidy, which is the least-objectionable in my book), as well as the public funding for 10 percenters (those annoying absurdly partisan flyers you get in the mail from an MP across the country are 100% funded by government). Aside from this trivial stuff, I wouldn't mind legalizing and regulating pot. That should raise a billion or two in taxes and probably save a billion or two in reduced court load and getting all those minor drug offenses out of prison. It also robs organized crime of a huge cash stream. Maybe this is where the mystery $4 billion in savings is coming from.


The will have to do a study that will costs hundreds of millions and take 4 years ,in the end will probably end up costing us 6 Billion in extra to save 4 billion


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

andrewf said:


> I think you're making the mistake that rich people necessarily work harder. Do you think a CEO making $10 million a year is working 500 times harder than the burger flipper? That's hard to believe.
> 
> Some of the difference in income is due to our endowed skills and abilities. Some people win the genetic lottery and have good health, intelligence, etc. that allow them to succeed in well-paying careers. I don't agree with social darwinism where we should let the poor rot.


How hard one works is just one factor that comes into income, there are many many other factors. I am reasonably comfortable saying that the $10mil CEO probably has a few more skills than the burger flippers. I think it would be fair to say, that I could find many people that could fill the role of a burger flipper without much difficulty and most people wouldn't notice that I changed the burger flipper. I'm pretty sure any CEO could walk in the role of the burger fipller. I think it would be much harder to find someone to fill in the role of the CEO, I'm pretty sure any burger flipper couldn't take on the same role of the CEO without anyone noticing.

The point is there are different incomes for different work. The great thing in Canada is, that if peole decide to make the choices and take the steps, they could better themselves. For some, it will be harder than others, but it is possible. Someone born in a rich family can be a X (fill in your top position here), just as someone from a poor family. Will the poor person have more struggles and challenges sure, but it can still be done. If the poor does succeed, guess what, their off spring will have better opportunites, and it will be easier to for the off sping to succeed than the next poor person... and so on.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Avoiding intergenerational poverty is one of the better reasons to have a strong social safety net. The other is that some people just are less talented or gifted than others, and will naturally tend to do worse than others, even for given levels of effort.

That CEO probably does work, two, three or even four times harder than the burger flipper. But the rest of their income is explain by natural talents, investments in education/human capital (more accessible to the rich than poor) and socioeconomic status.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

So what's wrong with being compensated for your intelligence, natural talents, hard work, education, skill set, risk taking, innovation, etc? Another way to look at it, is I bet there are more than 500x the people that can flip burgers, than do the job of the CEO of a large corporation. If that's the case, it becomes supply and demand. Unless you go with a socialist or communist state you're not going to have the everyone the same. There will always be poor and always be rich. At least in Canada, you have a good shot of moving across classes. 

I have no problems with providing a minimum safety net, I think that is one of the great things about Canada that many countries don't have. I think everyone's basic needs should be met, food, water shelter, healthcare, access to education. However, once you start getting into lifestyle choices, this is where it becomes more grey for me. I think spending outside of these needs are discretionary, yes, it might mean they wil have a meek life, but if they want more, then they will have to work harder, take more risks, up grade their skills, do whatever they need to do to get to the lifestyle they are satisfied with. 

The question also becomes what is considered the minimum? 

I don't have exact answers, but I have a list in my head of things that people who don't have money shouldn't be doing. That's where I personally get frustrated is when I see people who complain they don't have money to save and how poor they are but then go spend it on something not an necessity. After the basic needs, it's all about choices.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I don't think anyone is suggesting we tax that CEO into the stone age so all the burger flippers and welfare users can have his lifestyle. Maintaining incentive to work is important. After all, $10 million after tax is still a pretty comfortable 6-7 million, depending on how it's taxed. 

Do you honestly feel that you're not better compensated for your hard work/superior skills than that burger flipper?

I'll also point out that without a strong and stable society, it would be a lot harder for industrious types to make their living. I don't think it's too much to ask for the more fortunate to help fund the maintenance of that strong and stable society.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

andrewf said:


> I'll also point out that without a strong and stable society, it would be a lot harder for industrious types to make their living. I don't think it's too much to ask for the more fortunate to help fund the maintenance of that strong and stable society.


"If you stick me down in the middle of Bangladesh or Peru, you'll find out how much this talent is going to produce in the wrong kind of soil." -- Warren Buffett.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

olivaw said:


> Unfortunately that may mean BOTH higher taxes and reduced spending. I'd simply prefer that we waited until the economic recovery was more robust before we get carried away with spending cuts that may do more economic harm than good.


I totally agree with the position that let's hold off any tax cuts until we have a balanced budget.
Unfortunately, some of the political parties, while paying lip service to no increase in taxes, have proposed programs and platforms that will cause a substanial increase in spending.
So either they will raise taxes or increase the deficit, and more likely, both will happen.
Therefore, I'm in complete disagreement with that.

And since there is rather a high possibility that one or more of those political group will form a coalition govt. this is a serious and likely outcome.

I also disagree with the first part of your statement calling for both higher taxes and reduced spending.
We are already paying enough taxes, thank you very much.
I don't see how anyone can think of raising taxes (business, personal or retail) even further.
Therefore, I lean towards reduction in spending.
Reduction in spending as far as possible by cutting wastes, reducing the outrageous public sector compensation, simplifying taxes laws, etc.
Of course, cuts beyond a certain point will require reduction in programs, benefits, etc. but at least let us get started.



> Not sure what you mean by "party likes there's no tomorrow". It's our collective tomorrow that worries me.


That's what I meant.
As per your numbers, our debt rate as % of the GDP is already too high.
That's what I meant by "party".
Increase in taxation will further reduce the NNP.
It is important to understand the nature of the public spending beast - it always accomodates itself to the current level of funding available.
That is, public spending will expand to use up all available funding.
If you feed it more taxes, the budget will NOT be balanced.
Best case, the spending will increase in proportion.
Worst case, it will increase more than proportionately in the expectation of even more revenue coming.


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

Maybe Canada should consider a free or subsidized education system .If more people had access to higher education then we all will be better off in the long run .Then the people will earn more money and be able to pay more in income tax.
My daughter has a friend who is in her second year of working at Zellers to save for school.At the rate she is saving she will be nearly 25 before she can enroll in college.Many people go into work force with intention to go back to school later in life yet never get that chance.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

marina628 said:


> Maybe Canada should consider a free or subsidized education system .If more people had access to higher education then we all will be better off in the long run.


You believe so?
I look at some of the European countries (mainly the UK, these days) that tried it, failed, and are now clawing back on public education funding.
Socialized post secondary education is _very_ expensive as they are finding out.
And post-grad education even more so.
Almost to the extent that it will soon become the single largest expense item on the country's balance sheet - a spot that is occupied by health care these days.
Between socialized health care and socialized education, I don't think we can afford to have both.
We'll have to pick one and IMHO, social health care makes more sense.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

brad said:


> "If you stick me down in the middle of Bangladesh or Peru, you'll find out how much this talent is going to produce in the wrong kind of soil." -- Warren Buffett.


I'm pretty impressed by the humility and lack of hubris he shows. Many much less successful individuals don't manage it.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I like the UK's system. Students see most or all of the cost of their education, but every student has access to zero-real interest (ie, they compound at the rate of inflation) loans for at least 72% of their tuition and living expenses. The loans are repaid at the rate of 9% of income. Students still bear most of all of the cost of their education, but access is improved. I think there is also some loan forgiveness provisions for graduates whose income is low after graduation. It seems like a very fair system to me.


----------



## twowheeled (Jan 15, 2011)

andrewf said:


> I
> I'll also point out that without a strong and stable society, it would be a lot harder for industrious types to make their living. I don't think it's too much to ask for the more fortunate to help fund the maintenance of that strong and stable society.


I don't like the word fortunate. He's fortunate, they are less fortunate. Seems to insinuate that a persons success was largely in part to a good roll of the dice, which in most cases NOT true. People with higher income had to work harder for it. Seems like people who are in the lower income brackets want to downplay this effort and hard work to justify their own lack of success. The whole born into wealth notion is overplayed. Most of my colleagues in school, the ones who went on to become doctors, pharmacists, lawyers, etc, came from poorer families. Their parents sacrificed and made education savings so their kids would have a better life. 

Moreover how would you feel if you were at the top of your class in school, and the teacher took the 95% you got on your term paper and gave away some marks to give to the students at the bottom of the class, so you could all pass? You would be outraged. Why work harder when it means they are going to take the lions share from you? 

It feels the same way at work. I'm trying to put in longer hours, work overtime, save my money so I can put a downpayment on a house. But this extra work is pushing me into the next tax bracket, is that fair?


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

twowheeled said:


> I don't like the word fortunate. He's fortunate, they are less fortunate. Seems to insinuate that a persons success was largely in part to a good roll of the dice, which in most cases NOT true. People with higher income had to work harder for it.


The cream doesn't automatically rise to the top, though. When I think back over my career, luck had an awful lot to do with getting where I am today -- probably almost as much as my hard work. My hard work prepared me to take advantage of opportunities when they arose, but luck largely created the opportunities.


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

My cousin is 33 years old PHD and makes about $7000 a year from his 'job' at univeristy.He and all his other brainy friends smoke pot and play video games so sometimes education is not enough either 
On other hand my daughter's friend came out of high school and got a job at GM paying $300 a SHIFT.He gets called to fill in for people so may get 1 hour notice to get to work but none of his own shifts.Last week he made $1800.00.
He does not have any family in GM just applied on his own.
Since this is on the tax thing I pay taxes on my business income and we pay taxes on our $xxx,xxx family income .I give about $20,000 -$30,000 a year away to others who I feel deserve help to improve themselves as I am very fortunate and can afford to help others.
I personally know people who are cheap that won't give a dollar to their paperboy but brag about how much money they have.I believe that what comes around goes around in life , you give and you receive more .I like to give people a hand up not a hand out.
I am sure there are people here thinking OMG do you know how much money you would have if you invested that money instead of giving it away?To these guys I really feel sorry for you as obviously you have yet to realize the value of helping others and the true rewards from it.
I am in the highest tax bracket in Canada and nobody likes to pay taxes but the alternative is socially unacceptable to me so for that reason I work harder and pay even more taxes.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Probably like many fellow followers of this forum, I watch the business news on a daily basis. I flip around between BNN and the US Channels. I have lots of financial websites bookmarked on the internet.

Any you know what........everywhere I turned for the past couple of years, all I heard about was how much extra cash Corporations had stuffed in the bank. They had so much they were looking for ways to spend it all. The CEOs and higher management awarded themselves lavishly because of their good fortune. This is discussed on a daily basis on ALL of the business networks.

And then, you would hear how well the wealthy were doing. The high end retail stores were going great guns during the recession. It was the Walmarts that were having trouble. No problem at Tiffanys. We also heard how the gap between rich and poor was widening, as the wealthy gobbled up more and more of the total wealth. The rich just kept getting richer.

And so...........................

When I hear politicians say that Corporations "need" tax cuts, it makes me ill.

When I hear that the wealthy need a tax cut, so they can buy things and the money will trickle down to the store clerk level........it makes me ill.

But that is exactly what the politicians on both sides of the border are pushing. They want US..........mainly average and poor folks..........to give them our vote. They want us to nod in unision as they tell us how much better it will be for all of us if the Corporations and wealthiest among us, get that treasured tax break.

How stupid are we?

The politicians must think we are pretty stupid, when they announce ahead of time that they are going to stick it to us, and we happily cast our vote for them.

Who needs tax breaks?

Everybody BUT the Corporations and wealthy.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Marina........glad to hear about the young lad starting out at GM.

I worked for GM for 30 years. I had no education either. I was working as a supervisor in a shoe factory, went to a party at the plant nurses home, and her husband was a supervisor at GM. We were talking and he asked me if I knew anyone who needed a job. I said "yea, me". Two days later they called me at work. My boss was standing beside me when I took the call. I told him I was going to work at GM...........so long.

I worked 3 weeks before I filled out an application. They decided I best put one in and have a medical done................just to make it official.

I got my hippy, pot smoking lazy, brother a job there. Turned him around.

Sometimes all people need is a break. In this world, education will get you a "chance" at better opportunities, but isn't an ironclad guarantee.

Working at GM was truly an honour. It did, and I hope still does, have a family feeling about working there.

I hope the young lad does well, gets a chance at fulltime, and gets into the union so he can gain some job security.

Being a member of a union does more than provide benefits and pay. It also provides a sort of "mentorship" among members to help the young ones along the way. I never met a person at GM who wouldn't reach out and help someone in trouble. Even the company goes to great lengths to help employees stay on the straight and narrow.

I will keep my fingers crossed for him.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

sags said:


> When I hear politicians say that Corporations "need" tax cuts, it makes me ill.
> 
> When I hear that the wealthy need a tax cut, so they can buy things and the money will trickle down to the store clerk level........it makes me ill.


So what is your cut off point for defining "wealthy" and for determining which corp. should/shouldn't receive a tax break.
No one will agree to being wealthy and thus volunteer for higher taxes, so where do you draw the line?
$50K? $100K? $150K? $1M?
And what net earnings will qualify a corp. to pay more taxes?

Or are you recommending an across the board tax increase in personal and corporate taxes?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Not everyone has what it takes to be a doctor, lawyer, pharmacist. To the extent they do, and they had the opportunity, they were fortunate. It's not all chance, and it is to a sizable extent how much effort they put in. But a person's wealth and income is not some empirical measure of their virtue and level of effort.


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

Sags 
He said he will probably get a chance to get in Union after the summer , they told him he will get as many shifts as he can handle soon as vacations etc are starting.He does not have benefits yet but he is only 19 and planning to ride it out to the end as the wages are very good.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

brad said:


> The cream doesn't automatically rise to the top, though. When I think back over my career, luck had an awful lot to do with getting where I am today -- probably almost as much as my hard work. My hard work prepared me to take advantage of opportunities when they arose, but luck largely created the opportunities.


This is true, but I do think of success as when preparedness meets opportunity (partially luck). One cannot always control the opportunities given them in life, but they can influence them to a part, and they have more control over being ready. Definately, not everyone is being offered the same opportunites, however, I think many who are not as successful, aren't prepared when the opportunity arises. When you're poorer, it is harder, but that makes it even more important to be ready with the few opportunities arise. I have been fortunate in my career, however, I think I had some good opportunities, but I made many of them my self through choices that I made. 



andrewf said:


> Not everyone has what it takes to be a doctor, lawyer, pharmacist. To the extent they do, and they had the opportunity, they were fortunate. It's not all chance, and it is to a sizable extent how much effort they put in. But a person's wealth and income is not some empirical measure of their virtue and level of effort.



I agree that wealth and effort are not the only factors. However, what would be a 'fair' way to distribute wealth. If you're not cut out to be a dr, lawyer, etc, that's fine. It's doesn't mean that not everyone has an opportunity to become in Canada. For some it will be easier than others, for others, it will be difficult, but they will still become one, and for others, it's just not worth effort.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> So what is your cut off point for defining "wealthy" and for determining which corp. should/shouldn't receive a tax break.
> No one will agree to being wealthy and thus volunteer for higher taxes, so where do you draw the line?
> $50K? $100K? $150K? $1M?
> And what net earnings will qualify a corp. to pay more taxes?
> ...


Nope.......I am recommending "not lowering" their tax rates any lower than they already are. I also recommend eliminating a plethora of tax writeoffs that are a gift to the corporates and the wealthy.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

sags said:


> Nope.......I am recommending "not lowering" their tax rates any lower than they already are. I also recommend eliminating a plethora of tax writeoffs that are a gift to the corporates and the wealthy.


I agree with not lowering any taxe rate at this very moment.
However, IMHO, our taxes are high across the board.
I would like to see concrete spending reduction plans in any budget that is presented and approved by to-be-elected govt.
If not, then the current rate of taxation will continue and simply expand in the coming years i.e. higher taxes.
It is important that unless spending is reduced, there is no way to reduce taxes.
And since there is no clear external factor that can drive lower spending automatically, both spending and taxes will simply go on increasing in the near future.

I'm not sure specifically which programs you mean by "plethora of tax writeoffs that are a gift to the corporates and the wealthy" but again, how do you define wealthy and corporate?


----------



## slacker (Mar 8, 2010)

@andrewf: Vote Green. Their budget explicitly cited legalizing and licensing pot for reduce the deficit.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> I'm not sure specifically which programs you mean by "plethora of tax writeoffs that are a gift to the corporates and the wealthy" but again, how do you define wealthy and corporate?


People on the left complain about the plethora of tax writeoffs for corporations and the wealthy. People on the right complain about the legions of freeloaders milking our social support system. Nobody ever provides concrete evidence that these are widespread problems, but they're handy when one is attempting to promote one's political ideology.


----------



## slacker (Mar 8, 2010)

marina628 said:


> Maybe Canada should consider a free or subsidized education system .If more people had access to higher education then we all will be better off in the long run .Then the people will earn more money and be able to pay more in income tax.
> My daughter has a friend who is in her second year of working at Zellers to save for school.At the rate she is saving she will be nearly 25 before she can enroll in college.Many people go into work force with intention to go back to school later in life yet never get that chance.


I think the government already heavily funds the universities. Foreign students usually pay about 3 times the tuition of a local student, so I'm guessing the government funds about 2/3 of the tuition cost?


----------



## slacker (Mar 8, 2010)

olivaw said:


> people on the left complain about the plethora of tax writeoffs for corporations and the wealthy. People on the right complain about the legions of freeloaders milking our social support system. Nobody ever provides concrete evidence that these are widespread problems, but they're handy when one is attempting to promote one's political ideology.


+9000


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

slacker said:


> @andrewf: Vote Green. Their budget explicitly cited legalizing and licensing pot for reduce the deficit.


I am well aware of the Greens and their platform. I'd consider voting for them if they were in a position to win in my riding. As it stands, it'd be a protest vote. I have enough issues with the Conservatives that I'm more interested in ousting them than supporting the best party platform. May is a little bit too far to the left for me, but in many ways their platform is the most appealing to me.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

slacker said:


> I think the government already heavily funds the universities. Foreign students usually pay about 3 times the tuition of a local student, so I'm guessing the government funds about 2/3 of the tuition cost?


That's about right, and even still, many universities are straining under the financial pressure. I think it's time we set tuitions closer to cost and structured government intervention about ensuring access through affordable loans to everyone. I knew many people who didn't quality for OSAP because their parents had high incomes, despite the fact that their parents wouldn't support them (shitty parents, but what can you do?).


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

olivaw said:


> People on the left complain about the plethora of tax writeoffs for corporations and the wealthy. People on the right complain about the legions of freeloaders milking our social support system. Nobody ever provides concrete evidence that these are widespread problems, but they're handy when one is attempting to promote one's political ideology.


View from the left..........

The Globe and Mail, which is a fairly pro-business newspaper, did an analysis of statistics provided by Stats Canada.

Since the onset of the recession in 2008, businesses have gathered up 83 Billion dollars in cash, while decreasing their capital investments in machinery and buildings from 7% in 2000 to 5.5% in 2010. Simply put, they enjoyed lower corporate taxes, laid off their employees, didn't invest in new equipment for productivity, and put the cash in the bank. 

A steady stream of corporate tax cuts has not meant any difference in the amount of investment by businesses, and Canada's low productivity numbers are illustrative of the lack of investment.

I think most Canadians would also agree, lower corporate taxes haven't created a lot of jobs either.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...veals-as-election-pledges-fly/article1972599/


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> I'm not sure specifically which programs you mean by "plethora of tax writeoffs that are a gift to the corporates and the wealthy" but again, how do you define wealthy and corporate?


I think a good place to start would be with the 246,000 people who are the top 1% of the population. They earned an average of $405,000 per year, and captured 32% of all wage growth between 1997 and 2007.

They also hold most of the wealth in the country, and have the financial ability to utilize tax subsidized asset building programs, to a much greater degree than the other 99% of the population. 

The statistics are almost indentical to 1920 statistics, when a few people also held most of the wealth. One difference is that in 1920 they paid an income tax rate of 80% and today they pay 46%.

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/reports/rise-canadas-richest-1


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> I would like to see concrete spending reduction plans in any budget that is presented and approved by to-be-elected govt.
> If not, then the current rate of taxation will continue and simply expand in the coming years i.e. higher taxes.


I agree with you wholeheartedly on this point, and can provide a recent concrete example of spending tax dollars irrationally.

I know a young couple who wanted their own place. 

They have a son, and were living with the parents. They didn't have any money and no jobs. They sauntered down to the local Ontario Works office where they were told.........they "could" and "should" have a place of their own.

Ontario Works would provide 1500 for the first and last month rent. They would help pay for utility hookups, and they would provide an income each month.

So, despite the warnings from both sets of parents.......off they went.

The rent a townhome for 825 a month plus utilities.

They get their first month of Ontario Works...........1016.00

Obviously, this isn't going to work.....but they struggled and borrowed from parents........all the while looking frantically for work that wasn't there.

After 6 months and much cost to their parents, they are moving back home.

They owe arrears in utilities and are scraping every last dime they have to pay the last of the rent.

They have well paid jobs now........but it's too late.....the damage is done.

My question is simply this............

Who, in their right mind, would give someone first and last months rent, knowing full well the couple wouldn't be getting enough income to pay rent and utilities........let alone food and necessary items for their child?

Why do the social services throw 1500 bucks out the window everytime a young couple comes through the door?

That is just one small example, that is costing millions of dollars a year.

There are many, many more examples of other waste and foolishness.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

sags said:


> View from the left..........
> 
> The Globe and Mail, which is a fairly pro-business newspaper, did an analysis of statistics provided by Stats Canada.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I read that article, too...it's been thumped around a lot in blogs, forums and newsgroups by the opposition and its supporters as unimpeachable "proof" that the ex-Conservative govt. is simply a corporate and wealthy tax cut bandwagon.
However, while the stats behind the article may be correct, I have a different interpretation.

This whole article is centered on 2008 and the 2 years since the recession.
That period in question is the worst recession since the 1930s and arguably maybe the early 1970s.
During such a period, how can you expect a corporation to expand and grow by investing in new plants, machinery, new staff, etc.
It's a period of contraction, not growth.
The fact that corporations are sitting on cash does not mean that they have too many tax cuts - it simply means that they are in the middle of a bad recession and due to future uncertainity there is no rational sense in hiring more workers.

This is true not just for Canadian companies but for their larger and more global counterparts in the US.
S&P companies are sitting on record levels of cash coming into 2010 and 2011.
That is the most logical outcome.

An individual would have behaved in the same way...during the recession, did you save your money or did you go nuts buying new cars, new TV, new condos?

A result of all that cash is more M&A, increased dividends to shareholders (which I am, so thank you very much), more foreign acquisitions, etc.
And given the strength of the CAD, this enables our companies to acquire more businesses abroad, as well as buy better machinery at lower prices, measured in CAD.

I do not see this G&M article as proof that the corporate tax cuts have been a "gift to the rich".
Recall that corporate tax cuts were already underway well before the recession hit.

Lower corporate taxes, just like lower income taxes, is good.
Maybe not right at this moment, but whichever govt. is elected should work towards reducing taxes by reducing spending, and not assuming that current level of taxes is fine and tolerable, so let's keep current spending levels.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Well, I'd rather we spend where it makes sense, and not where it doesn't. Maybe that means less spending, but it could well mean more. I'd like smarter spending overall. I don't think taxes in Canada are all that high. People who say we're the highest taxed country in the world don't know what the hell they are talking about.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...-bills-are-huge-which-is-good/article1981609/


----------



## el oro (Jun 16, 2009)

I pretty much share your POV Harold but I have no hope of any candidate reducing spending. Corporate tax cuts would be great if accompanied by cuts in spending. 

Canadians would be better off overall if
1)the government would stop spending more than they make and
2) capital shifts from public to private through reduced government taxes and spending.

Changing taxes in one bracket will shift wealth from some people to others but won't improve things much for Canadians overall.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

^ I think the above assertions need more than just to be stated. I don't think everyone, for instance, agree with the following on the face of it:

"Changing taxes in one bracket will shift wealth from some people to others but won't improve things much for Canadians overall. "

It's pretty easy to make an argument to the contrary.


----------



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

$1600 Gold by 2011 said:


> 1)the government would stop spending more than they make


So you would be okay with longer wait times for medical procedures, more litter in your park, more potholes in your roads, poorer quality drinking water, more speed traps and more levies/fees/taxes?


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

the-royal-mail said:


> So you would be okay with longer wait times for medical procedures, more litter in your park, more potholes in your roads, poorer quality drinking water, more speed traps and more levies/fees/taxes?


Of course, no one would be ok with that.
That is a self-evident question.

If it takes all our tax dollars to maintain the roads and clean the parks, then we either have the lowest taxes in the world ever (which we do not), or we have some very expensive janitors 

From a pure economic perspective, a slight deficit budget is desirable.
The govt. needs to run a slight deficit in order to ensure +ve real interest rates and a slightly +ve inflation.
If not, a country may have a flatlined growth rate and/or threat of stagnation/deflation.
So I'm not advocating a consistent budget surplus.
Neither am I an extreme libertarian like Boortz or a connoisseur of fine Boston Tea parties 
I'm not advocating laissez faire, either.

However, a consistent and large budget deficit is clearly untenable, as many countries including the mightly US is finding out.
Leaving aside obvious basket cases like Portugal, Greece and the rest of the PIIGS, even highly developed and efficient economies like the UK, US, etc. are now coming to terms with this fact.

A country can simply not continue increasing taxes to fund more and more public sector spending.
There's only so much you can raise taxes.

Taxes, primarily, should go towards providing goods and services that are:
(a) of a national or strategic interest (such as defense, nuclear research, etc.) and/or 
(b) the private sector cannot provide profitably and without unreasonable cost to ordinary households, such as police, infrastructure, emergency services, history and national park maintenance, etc.

Among the big ticket public service items, such as health care, education, infrastructre and so on, the society must decide which ones and how much do we leave in the hands of the govt. and what (if any) and how much the role of private sector should be.
The govt. can do some of these exclusively, or do part of all of them, but _it cannot do all of them entirely all of the time_, without creating a USSR-style socialist society (because that's what they ended up doing).

Now each country and each society is different and must pick which ones the govt. does and how much.
But it has to be kept in mind that the govt. cannot do all of it all of the time.

Some political party platforms in this election have suggested very substantial increase in govt. involvement in all aspects of the large ticket items such as education, health care, retirement policies, etc. and I can't see that happening without substantial increases in all kinds of taxes across the board.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I think we should aim for small surpluses. All significant surprises are on the downside, so if you want a small deficit, aim for a surplus and on average we'll get a small deficit.

I'm not aware of any theory that suggests the government needs to run a deficit for there to be small positive inflation and real interest rates. Why is it the government that has to do the borrowing and not the private sector?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> Some political party platforms in this election have suggested very substantial increase in govt. involvement in all aspects of the large ticket items such as education, health care, retirement policies, etc. and I can't see that happening without substantial increases in all kinds of taxes across the board.


Neither the Libs nor the CPC are proposing large increases in spending. Lib spending proposals are 6 billion/year, or less than 3% increase in federal spending. Their proposals are designed to sound significant without spending a lot of money. I could leave their education proposal, though.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

andrewf said:


> I'm not aware of any theory that suggests the government needs to run a deficit for there to be small positive inflation and real interest rates.


For a few reasons: it maintains liquidity in the economy and it creates positive business and investment environment if everyone believes that the govt. is spending money and investing in the country. It also creates a slightly inflationary pressure, which is good for business (not hyper double-digit inflation, of course, just a mild 2%-ish).
It also ensures the yield curve trends upwards.
Lot of good things come out of that.
It also maintains stability in the currency and if anything creates a slight downward pressure, which encourages exports.

In reality though there are lots of other factors at play, esp. in an increasingly global economy so most of this gets lost in the noise sometimes.

However, IMHO, it's a good practice and often used as a model in macro-economic theory.

Whether you aim for a slight surplus and achieve a slight deficit or aim for the deficit in the first place is a matter of implementation and sentiment....I'm not too concerned about it.

At least, we agree that a large deficit budget is not in anyone's interest 

And a surplus budget just produces whiners on both sides of the political spectrum - one group will claim taxes are too high and another group will claim we need more services.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

In fact, in the long run we can't run surpluses. If the government ran surpluses for the next thousand years, eventually the government would own everything. So, I'm a fan of a low, stable debt:GDP ratio. I'd like to see the feds target a 25% debt:GDP ratio. We were on track to hit that by 2015, before the conservatives were elected.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

andrewf said:


> In fact, in the long run we can't run surpluses. If the government ran surpluses for the next thousand years, eventually the government would own everything. So, I'm a fan of a low, stable debt:GDP ratio. I'd like to see the feds target a 25% debt:GDP ratio. We were on track to hit that by 2015, before the conservatives were elected.


Agreed, however, there were once in a lifetime extenuating circumstances i.e. the financial crisis of 2008 - 2009.
Once you add in the stimulus spending, the multiple bailouts, etc. they had no chance of meeting that target by 2015.
They are _saying_ they can get there by 2015 but IMHO are making a rather generous assumption around GDP growth.
However, 2017 should be realistic.
No other political party can achieve a balanced budget or even close based on the spending plans they have presented.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

The real problem is that they put us into a structural deficit. It wouldn't have been a disaster that we did the stimulus and auto bailouts if we could count on a balanced budget over the business cycle (which means surpluses of $10 billion-$20 billion when the economy is humming along). Tax cuts are nice, but not when they are done with borrowed money. That's called stealing from your kids.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

andrewf said:


> I could leave their education proposal, though.


That is why I voted against Martin. I think Martin is one hell of a guy!


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

andrewf said:


> I'd like to see the feds target a 25% debt:GDP ratio. We were on track to hit that by 2015, before the conservatives were elected.


Debt is OK when it is used to finance infrastructure like highways. But it is unacceptable/irresponsible to finance operating expenditures.

Where were the days when there was a capital account with debts and a current account for the rest.


----------



## hboy43 (May 10, 2009)

Hi:

I think the optimum level of gevernment is about 25% of GNP, down from the current 45 or 47 or whatever it is in that range. So on that basis, everyone deserves lower taxes.

There are certain things governments should do and certain things it shouldn't do. Unfortunately, western society has evolved to the point where some of the things it should do aren't getting done any more because there are no votes in them. Things like the big fat whopping infrastructure defecit that we have read about recently: roads, bridges, water mains.

Then there are all the things government shouldn't be doing but are. In contrast to above, there are votes in these things. In this category are things like building professional sports stadiums, subsidizing businesses, subsidizing home ownership, regulation of every last detail of our lives, paying in the margin any amount of money to save a life.

The reality is that the rest of you have out voted people who think like me, so I adapted to the reality as best I can. Rather than ***** about paying 50% in the margin on my employment income, I stopped working. I'd rather have less income than contribute taxes to things I don't want or need. Some here will argue that if everyone did as I, society would collapse. Well so be it, or maybe, just maybe, governments being deprived of excess funds would be forced to choose wisely in how they spend our money. If I ever see them spending wisely, I just might be willing to get a job again, raise my income, and pay more taxes. I won't hold my breath.

I don't know how else I can influence society. Voting is clearly useless.

I challenge everyone else here to go on strike as I have, decline paid work, or work less, and pay less taxes. If a few million citizens did this, maybe things would change. But I suspect nobody here really wants that much change. In the end, we all want the free lunch (subsidy, tax credit).

Am I a scoundrel? Someone up thread said that it doesn't matter how one becomes sick, whether through genetic bad luck, or choosing a poor lifestyle, sick is sick and all are equally deserving of publicly funded health care. The state (ie being sick) is what matters, not the path that got you to the state. I would argue that then financial sickness or poverty is the same. It doesn't matter how I came to be "poor" such that I have an annual income of about $42,000 and pay $1 to $2K personal income taxes each year. If one group of citizens can choose to be a cost (health care) burden, then surely I can equally choose to be a revenue burden.

As a final thought ask yourself the following question: Why is it that back in the 50s and 60s with half (or whatever) the real GNP of today, most households could get by on one income, but now everyone seems to agree that two incomes are necessary? 

Where has all the extra wealth in society gone over the last half century? Wherever it has gone, are we getting something of real value in return?

hboy43


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Canadians were substantially poorer in 1950. We didn't have two cars in the driveway, our houses were smaller, there was one TV if you were well off, very few went to post-secondary education, medical care was rudimentary at best, etc. Our standard of living today is much higher. The reason why everyone was wrong about our productivity gains translating into the three day work week is that people would rather consume more goods and services than more leisure time. Ie, people would rather the extra car (or the two BMWs) in the driveway, pool, vacations etc. than more leisure time. I'm pretty confident you could raise a family on the median individual income if you lived in a 1950s bungalow (~800-1200 sqft), didn't have cable television, computers or internet, rarely ate at restaurants or went on vacations to exotic destinations. But compared to your neighbours, you might feel like a pauper.


----------



## Guest (Apr 15, 2011)

andrewf said:


> I'm pretty confident you could raise a family on the median individual income if you lived in a 1950s bungalow (~800-1200 sqft), didn't have cable television, computers or internet, rarely ate at restaurants or went on vacations to exotic destinations.


 Fwiw ... my dad worked 2 jobs back then for that 50s bungalow, no cable, no restaurants ... just to say, for some it took and still takes 2 incomes ... I say the working class deserve a reduction in taxes ... and to add, I have a tremendous respect for anyone who works.


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

I remember when we got our 2nd television, it was a 14 inch color TV and my parents gave it to all three of for Xmas and we didn't get much else.We grew up with 2 channels and my parents only got a phone 37 years ago.When i was 18 the 'baby bonus ' was about $36 a month ,I can still remember the guilt trip my parents laid on me if I wanted to buy a pair jeans for $20.00 lol.It worked though as I had $5000 in my savings when i finished high school *cough cough 26 years ago*Of course i was only 3 when I graduated


----------

