# Romney ratio for Canada - 38%



## Ethan (Aug 8, 2010)

Given Mitt Romney's comments that came to light recently regarding what percentage of Americans pay no income tax, I was curious what the number was in Canada. The below article by William Watson at the financial post indicates that the rate in Canada is 38%.

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/09/19/william-watson-our-romney-ratio/

Interesting that there were individuals with less than $5k of income who paid taxes, while other individuals with greater than $250k income paid no taxes. The top 0.7% of all income earners paid 20% of all income taxes in 2009.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Yes. We call that a graduated tax system. What is his point?


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

I didn't think this number (or Romney's comment) is particularly useful.
Here we are looking only at income taxes.
There are many, many ways around income taxes - some legal, some not, some clever, some crafty.
Income tax policy also allows govt. to pick winners and losers (i.e. favorable treatment of investment income vs. employment income).

That aside, there are so many other types of taxes that we pay day in and day out.
Consumption taxes, property taxes, user fees (such as driving license, car registrations, etc.), sin taxes.

To me, the number that will be meaningful is what % of gross income do individuals pay in the form of various taxes.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

OptsyEagle said:


> What is his point?


How many moochers are in Canada.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> To me, the number that will be meaningful is what % of gross income do individuals pay in the form of various taxes.


Start counting if you really want to know the exact figure, or maybe not. 

Speaking of taxes, I bought a new monitor last week and paid the EHF [Environmental Handling Fee] of $11, which is fine by me, however, I wonder why other items that are replaced with much higher frequency, like cell-phones for example, are so much less.


----------



## Homerhomer (Oct 18, 2010)

The taxpayer includes everyone who filed taxes: every kid who was entitled to GST credit, or made little money and the parent filed their taxes, students who don't work much, stay at home parents, as well as elderly with little income and others who work part time (for many reasons), poeple with disabilities who are unable to work. I gather the article is meant to make a headline, but not everyone of the 10 million is on welfare or scamming the taxpayers - which I think was the whole point of this piece.


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

Yep. I will be filing tax return for my 13yo daughter next spring. She earned $600 this summer doing babysitting. Count her in as a big-time moocher.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

Homerhomer said:


> not everyone of the 10 million is on welfare or scamming the taxpayers.


Of course not, but the point is that there are some, and no small % of them either.


----------



## Square Root (Jan 30, 2010)

Toronto.gal said:


> How many moochers are in Canada.


poor choice of words. Clearly not true.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

That wasn't the point of the article SR, then what was it? 'Moocher' was not my word, I was just quoting.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Jon Stewart broke down that 47% on his show a few days ago:

-Working class families
-Working poor
-Seniors
-Troops who do not pay tax on their pay while in combat

It's fun to demonize these people until you think about who they are. They are likely people who have paid or will pay income taxes, but do not currently. They generally work, but do not earn a large income. They are not layabout moochers...

The Republicans complain about class warfare when the Dems talk about taxation of the rich. They then turn around and complain about taxation of the poor, retired or active service personnel and that is not class warfare?


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Most Canadians are "moochers" of some sort, including the lion's share of readers on this site. Think about it. If the federal budget is about $260 Billion and there are 26 million Canadians, anyone that paid less then $10,000 in income taxes is some form of moocher. Now sure the government gets revenues from other sources, GST, gas taxes, alcohol taxes, etc, but I would imagine they would nicely cover our provincial obligations, if that.

Now when one goes to determine if they pay their "fair" share of taxes, one also needs to subtract things like OAS and GIS and any other government freebees. When that is done, I would bet most seniors in Canada pay no income taxes at all (but I bet they think they do).

My point is, the lions share of all the taxes, in this country are paid by the rich and the corporations. The rest of us are just making token contributions. We are basically moochers of one degree or another... and I like that. Seems fair to me.


----------



## Square Root (Jan 30, 2010)

Toronto.gal said:


> That wasn't the point of the article SR, then what was it? 'Moocher' was not my word, I was just quoting.


Sorry missed the fact you were quoting. Didn't see any " " Was moocher actually used in the original article? If so it was a poor choice of words and untrue.


----------



## Sampson (Apr 3, 2009)

I've always felt my 2 year old was a bit of a moocher, and a lazy one at that.


----------



## Young&Ambitious (Aug 11, 2010)

Sampson said:


> I've always felt my 2 year old was a bit of a moocher, and a lazy one at that.


Time for him to start paying taxes right? Chores will do :encouragement:


----------



## Square Root (Jan 30, 2010)

Well I am certainly not a "moocher" based on eagle's discussion and I think that is fair, too.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

Square Root said:


> Was moocher actually used in the original article? If so it was a poor choice of words and untrue.


I didn't use proper quotes, but I had assumed those commenting would have read the article. Yes, 'moocher' was used more than once.

Apology accepted. each:


----------



## Ethan (Aug 8, 2010)

The term "moocher" was used in the article, but I think it was meant in a jesting way based off of Romney's comments.

I don't think the author was trying to form any opinions on the Canadian tax system. I think he was merely trying to show what the rates are in Canada. There has been lots of discussion coming from the states in the last few years. The Democrats and the occupy movement have been making claims that the rich aren't paying their fair share, with Warren Buffett claiming his secretary pays a larger average tax rate than he does. Counter to that are the Republicans and tea party who have been claiming that the rich are being unfairly labelled given their disproportionately high taxes, and given that nearly half the nation pays no income taxes. Lots of ratios and percentages are being thrown around in the media, however they are all American. This article merely shows what those ratios are in Canada.


----------



## Homerhomer (Oct 18, 2010)

Ethan said:


> I don't think the author was trying to form any opinions on the Canadian tax system. I think he was merely trying to show what the rates are in Canada. .


Not sure I agree, my take on the article is that the author simply wants an attention grabbing headline and to sensanionalize the issue. We have previously discussed here what is a taxpayer and how many poeple are not milking the system by not paying income taxes, but also of note is the fact (at least that's how I understand it) that he is piling up only federal income tax rates and not combined federal/provincial taxes, and I think many poeple would read the stats and apply it as combined rates.

The article is very far from a complete picture, thus of very little value imo.


----------

