Sign in to follow this  
Malcolm

Post Election Topics / Tactics

Recommended Posts

Inchman

No argument from here with anything you are suggesting. I think your comments respecting, tax rates, managing the desperation of the have-not’s and the need to study the issue of spending are spot on, I’m enjoying the discussion. I think it’s good when people recognize all is not well and are prepared at least to begin discussion on the sensitive matters that we’re all aware are in need of reform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you think a guy earning say 10 mil a year is going to "hurt" with only 5 mil?

What I am saying Mitch is that it is all relative. We need better social programs but we also need ones that work and do not encourage the idle ..... also of course I don't agree with a 50% flat tax for instance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be frank, I'm probably one of the few "1%ers" who post on the forum. I don't mind paying taxes. That's part of my responsibility in helping to run the country, just as it is my responsibility to give to charity (for which I get a tax break!). Oh, I complain about it, but that's just part of being Canadian. I would much rather pay Canadian taxes than live in a society where people live in poverty at the levels that occur just to our south.

I would suggest that the vast majority of higher income earners feel the same way. Certainly, I will use the rules available to me to save some taxes. The government puts those incentives in the tax laws to help guide the citizenry to carry out their plan and I'm just complying.

The taxation system in Canada is not as socialist as some would infer. I'm not about to leave the country to save a few thousand in taxes. Those that do put too much emphasis on numbers, IMO. What are they going to do with all that extra money? And, just because I pay a high percentage on my top dollar (a total of over 50% after Ontario taxes and surtaxes), I am not discouraged from running a side business and earning additional income.

My previous post talks about the problem being spending, but the answer certainly is NOT to let the populace decide what to spend on. The government has to put unpopular, sometimes expensive, programs in place.

Vancouver's recent experience with this was a telling tale. People voted down a 0.5% PST increase that would made a huge improvement in the quality of everyone's life in the Vancouver area. It was probably a perfect example of a feeble premier avoiding making tough, good decisions by downloading the decision onto the electorate who voted with their hate of taxation rather than their brains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Defcon, I agree with your point "when the programs of government become hand-outs versus a hand up" and we only have to take a look at
Greece for a current example of what can go wrong when the Government giving becomes the norm with the resulting unbearable debt load.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly Malcolm; Greece is a great example of a government accidentally, but intentionally 'leading' the people to a place where the plan is to place them into servitude to the 1%ers.

Inchman; although your income may exceed the income threshold of a 1%er, you're not really one when you're a T-4 income earner; you are a productive person and a target. A true 1%er pushes paper to receive million dollar bonuses for screwing people out of their holdings.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The money hoarders.

Amazing how those who don't have, do have envy and completely ignore that a lot of those who by the sweat of their brow and very long hours built up a business from nothing while providing jobs for the jobless and now are envied for their efforts & want to bring them down to their own level . :angry_smile: There is no doubt some benefited from inheritance but a large number earned their wealth and have the right to enjoy it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hoo Boy.... Once again, dear sir, you have gone and made a whole boat-load of assumptions that are away out in left field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hoo Boy.... Once again, dear sir, you have gone and made a whole boat-load of assumptions that are away out in left field.

So enlighten me point by point........ but also as I pointed out when I welcomed you back that we will disagree on most things. I guess I forgot to say, "Don't take it personal"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And btw Malcolm, old mate, there are no flipping "levels"! We're all made of the same stuff, and all of us are as worthless as the Maple leaves that fell on my lawn today... Here today, gone tomorrow... I guess the next higher "level" might be around someplace, but not here on Earth, that's for damned sure!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mitch I do agree that we are all on the same level but just like the fable of the "Grasshopper and the Ant" there are those who work hard to suceed and those who would rather live off the efforts of others. Sure glad you and I (I hope) are not grasshoppers :biggrin1:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why presume that flat tax has to be as high as 50%? More like 20%. And those with lower income pay less than now, because under a fair system the exemption would be a much more realistic and higher number, therefore taxes would be lower. Whatever the amount, is the amount and government spending should follow the income, unless of course the government can generate income other than taxes which it should. Whatever the case, those that earn more should not be taxed a higher rate because there is no legal or moral justification for it.

And for the record, the so called "rich" do stimulate the economy just as much if not more than the spending of the lower income earners. They create jobs especially in small businesses. To give more than the required taxes should be voluntary as many wealthy people do by donating lots of money. To punish the so called "rich" by the virtue of our vote is wrong. This system has come to be and endured because the majority benefit from it, but majority is not always right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know plenty of small business owners and very, very few of them are earning enough to be affected by the higher tax rate for those over $200,000. In terms of who creates the most jobs, it is not high income earners, it's the middle class. That's hardly news, in spite of what some would try to tell us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On one of the other threads, there's an item wherein a passenger calls for DH-8Q's to be equipped with O2 'masks' for pax during cabin smoke events. Probably made plenty of sense on an intuitive level for a lot of lay readers - who don't know $#!+-from-shine about the subject. Of course the issue is just a bit more complicated, and maybe the folks who decide those things aren't complete imbeciles. So it could be with other complicated issues.

.... it's not possible to come up with a taxation system to which a single flat tax, with or without a large basic exemption that will allow the government to have enough money to provide even the most basic services... military, police, transportation, healthcare... the waste is frustrating, and widely reported but is actually a relatively small component of overall spending ....

.... The taxation system in Canada is not as socialist as some would infer. I'm not about to leave the country to save a few thousand in taxes. Those that do put too much emphasis on numbers, IMO. What are they going to do with all that extra money? And, just because I pay a high percentage on my top dollar (a total of over 50% after Ontario taxes and surtaxes), I am not discouraged from running a side business and earning additional income ....

Good couple of posts, inchman - Just for a starting point, running the basic arithmetic should be a given. For a little further food-for-thought about taxation and debt and conventional wisdom:In addition to some simple analytical rigour, we should be careful about applying inappropriate analogies. We hear a lot about Greece. We're not Greece; not only because we're perhaps a bit more responsible fiscally, but in a large part because we have our own currency. Nor are we, as a country, just like a family running up an unsustainable credit card burden. Analogies are useful (we're not all conversant with economists' theories and lingo), but only if they are truly applicable. Much of our debt is held within the 'family' (i.e. by Canadians), and while there is debt obligation outside the 'household' (i.e. internationally), our house also holds the debt of other houses. The concept of "too much national debt" is complex.

There's also no point to silly exaggerations. Nobody is suggesting the expropriation of all the wealth of the richest among us. Tax rates are being adjusted by a couple of points, for Pete's sake. The top marginal rates used to be double or more what they are today, and that through great periods of growth.

I for one will be eating out much less, going to more grocery stores when on layovers, pickup a 6 pack instead of going to the pub. I will also stop tipping the so called low income earners for their "service" and hand them liberal tokens instead. Sorry we all have to pay now.

& thinair - not sure why you'd punish yourself (and your server) with all that self-denial. If you're "pay[-ing more] now",you're making about $220K or more. Keep treating yourself to the odd night out ;)

Cheers, IFG :b:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of us 1%ers don't have the luxury of a pension. Hoarding money in our earning years will help ensure we're less of a burden in our retirement years. Is there something wrong with that?

Speaking of which, I find it interesting that here in Ontario the Liberal government is introducing a provincial pension plan because we "don't save enough", yet the new federal Liberal government wants to dial back the TFSA because we're saving too much. Hmmmm.

Maybe you'd all like to think you're among the very wealthy, but if you're working for a living and have a boss, you aren't the subject of "the 1%".... as I said I'm sure the true subjects (Rockefellers et al) are a much smaller percentage.... Those are "The Money Hoarders" You guys are peasants to them.... just like me :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems one way to define a 'rich' person is if they have:

1. A job that earns over $100,000 per year, or

2. A house assessed for more than $1,000,000, or

3. A good pension/retirement income.

If you have any more than one of these you are probably 'wealthy'.

If the job/house/pension is above average you are probably 'very wealthy'.

And, for the record, Federal pensions are very much above average, even more so than the mainline plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I...............................................

And, for the record, Federal pensions are very much above average, even more so than the mainline plan.

Morning John.....

"Federal" who?.......what department?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And, for the record, Federal pensions are very much above average, even more so than the mainline plan.

I know a recently retired TC inspector, 35 years of service. They'd happily trade their pension with the retired airline pilots I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly, the reality is that I'm not wealthy and likely never will be, but under the proposed changes to the tax code I'll be taxed as if I am.

"Sadly"? What sadly? Come on Rich. You've had a good run, haven't ya? You have a roof.... no bombs dropping on your family... food in your belly, a laugh or two in your gut.... If you had mega riches you'd have mega worries too. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I've never claimed to be wealthy let alone very wealthy, but according to the new federal government I'm "rich". Sadly, the reality is that I'm not wealthy and likely never will be, but under the proposed changes to the tax code I'll be taxed as if I am."

The perfect target.

We talk about money and physical possessions as if they're the only measure of wealth. In fact, without your good health, all that 'stuff' you hold to as being important to who you are is absolutely meaningless. Sooner, or later all sick men come to appreciate their mortality, which can be one of the most revealing moments in a persons life. Most will fully understand just how 'wealthy' the healthy guy is regardless of status, how wealthy he really was when his day was consumed by shallow pursuits and concerns respecting the frivolous nature of his previous quest for pretend wealth actually was and how important real things like ‘family’ are.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Morning John.....

"Federal" who?.......what department?

Hi Kip,

Federal just-about-anybody.

Department? - Just about any of them. ESPECIALLY those involved with or elected by taxpayers. (Politicians topping the list.)

Put it this way - if your pension is indexed then you now have a gold-plated pension. You may not think so but your pension is still far better than the vast majority of the rest of your fellow Canadians.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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.

Sign in to follow this