Sign in to follow this  
deicer

Trump 2.0 Continues

Recommended Posts

Further to the above:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tax-repatriation/corporations-may-dodge-billions-in-u-s-taxes-through-new-loophole-experts-idUSKBN1F035Q

And even if they repatriate profits, it still may be only smoke and mirrors...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-19/u-s-companies-repatriated-169-5-billion-in-second-quarter

Companies pay the “deemed” tax whether or not the profits are actually brought back onshore. They can elect to pay the amount over eight years, despite when, or if, the money is brought back to the U.S.

 

So if you are wondering why the global 'yellow vest' riots are happening, it is because the average Joe is fed up with having to pay a disproportionate share of the tax load.  

But hey, the corporations have them convinced it's the government doing it to them.

Edited by deicer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what this country needs is a Tax system based on spending and not on income.

Flat rate tax payed by everyone.  no deductions.  everyone pays their fair amount. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, boestar said:

what this country needs is a Tax system based on spending and not on income.

Flat rate tax payed by everyone.  no deductions.  everyone pays their fair amount. 

I have been advocating this for years and it always gets criticized by Leftists as unfair. I have always wondered how a system that treats everyone equally be be considered unequal?

Only Socialists apparently know for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Decier

For the purpose of the debate let's pretend boestar is in the 10% group you are intentionally ignoring and you're not.

On top of paying his and your share of the provincial & federal income taxes, boestar's also 'forced' to pay a consumption tax the government takes 60% of to cover its handling fees before sending the remainder on to you in the form of a quarterly HST rebate cheque.

Obviously the two considerations above don't come anywhere close to providing a full list of all the 'free' entitlements governments grant to the 90%. 

That being the case, isn't it fair for boestar to wonder when you will be stepping up to contribute your fair share to cover the costs of the burden?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The short answer is no.

As I said above, set a fair tax for corporations and then make sure they pay it by closing the loopholes.  As it is, they pay way less proportionally than the '90%'.  

The rest of what you said is just idle reflection on something that can never be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Jaydee said:

I have been advocating this for years and it always gets criticized by Leftists as unfair.

I thought it was just me....

I have long considered the value of a flat tax as well. Although progressives would hatch multi coloured kittens at the thought of it, I wonder if it wouldn’t generate as much or more revenue by virtue of the fact that there would be virtually no escape from it.

Say a few standard deductions (RRSPs, business expenses and the like) with a regional (or provincial) threshold below which you pay nothing…. everything else (personal and business) is at a flat rate of 15%. A grade 6 student  with a calculator could easily figure out the personal income tax payable.

I couldn’t find any worthwhile projections online so don’t actually know how it would shape up but it might be worth looking at should overall revenue be the same or greater.... something to be said for simplicity and total capture.  

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Wolfhunter said:

I thought it was just me....

I have long considered the value of a flat tax as well. Although progressives would hatch multi coloured kittens at the thought of it, I wonder if it wouldn’t generate as much or more revenue by virtue of the fact that there would be virtually no escape from it.

Say a few standard deductions (RRSPs, business expenses and the like) with a regional (or provincial) threshold below which you pay nothing…. everything else (personal and business) is at a flat rate of 15%. A grade 6 student  with a calculator could easily figure out the personal income tax payable.

I couldn’t find any worthwhile projections online so don’t actually know how it would shape up but it might be worth looking at should overall revenue be the same or greater.... something to be said for simplicity and total capture.  

I can hear the screaming now from certain types on this very forum at the very suggestion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, deicer said:

The short answer is no.

As I said above, set a fair tax for corporations and then make sure they pay it by closing the loopholes.  As it is, they pay way less proportionally than the '90%'.  

The rest of what you said is just idle reflection on something that can never be.

which is why I stated FLAT TAX no deductions.  we should not be taxed based on potential spending but actual spending.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, DEFCON said:

Decier

For the purpose of the debate let's pretend boestar is in the 10% group you are intentionally ignoring and you're not.

On top of paying his and your share of the provincial & federal income taxes, boestar's also 'forced' to pay a consumption tax the government takes 60% of to cover its handling fees before sending the remainder on to you in the form of a quarterly HST rebate cheque.

Obviously the two considerations above don't come anywhere close to providing a full list of all the 'free' entitlements governments grant to the 90%. 

That being the case, isn't it fair for boestar to wonder when you will be stepping up to contribute your fair share to cover the costs of the burden?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

HST REBATE????  LMAO I have never seen one

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wolfhunter said:

I thought it was just me....

I have long considered the value of a flat tax as well. Although progressives would hatch multi coloured kittens at the thought of it, I wonder if it wouldn’t generate as much or more revenue by virtue of the fact that there would be virtually no escape from it.

Say a few standard deductions (RRSPs, business expenses and the like) with a regional (or provincial) threshold below which you pay nothing…. everything else (personal and business) is at a flat rate of 15%. A grade 6 student  with a calculator could easily figure out the personal income tax payable.

I couldn’t find any worthwhile projections online so don’t actually know how it would shape up but it might be worth looking at should overall revenue be the same or greater.... something to be said for simplicity and total capture.  

RRSPs  are deductions from INCOME.  If based on spending then the system becomes more fair

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like his tax returns, what is Donnie so adamant on hiding?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-has-concealed-details-of-his-face-to-face-encounters-with-putin-from-senior-officials-in-administration/2019/01/12/65f6686c-1434-11e9-b6ad-9cfd62dbb0a8_story.html?utm_term=.77158d5b2aef

President Trump has gone to extraordinary lengths to conceal details of his conversations with Russian President Vladi­mir Putin, including on at least one occasion taking possession of the notes of his own interpreter and instructing the linguist not to discuss what had transpired with other administration officials, current and former U.S. officials said.

Trump did so after a meeting with Putin in 2017 in Hamburg that was also attended by then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. U.S. officials learned of Trump’s actions when a White House adviser and a senior State Department official sought information from the interpreter beyond a readout shared by Tillerson.

The constraints that Trump imposed are part of a broader pattern by the president of shielding his communications with Putin from public scrutiny and preventing even high-ranking officials in his own administration from fully knowing what he has told one of the United States’ main adversaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, boestar said:

RRSPs  are deductions from INCOME.  If based on spending then the system becomes more fair

 

They are indeed.... no need to decide the nitty gritty yet I guess. But, tax policy is a tool and encouraging some behaviours, like saving for retirement might be worthy of consideration. I could see income splitting for seniors in there too but there would be very (VERY) little in the way of standard deductions.

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats where my issue sits.  if two people make radically different incomes there is a potential that the higher earner can actually pay less overall tax than the lower income earner.  This is where the unfair part comes in.  Deductions from income have too many loopholes and methods to evade paying taxes.

IF you are going to tax income then set a flat rate and leave it at that.  no deductions.  you want to save for retirement then that on you.

All other taxes should be consumption based by using a standard VAT/GST scheme.

At no point should total taxation approach or even come close to 50% of ones total income.  if that kind of government taxation is required then it is government that needs fixing.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, boestar said:

Thats where my issue sits.  if two people make radically different incomes there is a potential that the higher earner can actually pay less overall tax than the lower income earner.  This is where the unfair part comes in.  Deductions from income have too many loopholes and methods to evade paying taxes.

IF you are going to tax income then set a flat rate and leave it at that.  no deductions.  you want to save for retirement then that on you.

All other taxes should be consumption based by using a standard VAT/GST scheme.

At no point should total taxation approach or even come close to 50% of ones total income.  if that kind of government taxation is required then it is government that needs fixing.

 

I would need to see a workable model in order to reach any conclusions I guess. I think Hong Kong had (or made still does) a flat tax system. I would want to see some history, and cause & effect models before leaping into it. I maintain a healthy respect for the law of unintended consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am in favour of everyone being eligible to receive a basic living wage but only if that is also linked to doing a set amount of basic work (based on physical and mental ability).  No work, no pay.  Re taxes that would / should be tied to the individual's consumption of public funded benefits / infrastructure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Malcolm said:

Re taxes that would / should be tied to the individual's consumption of public funded benefits / infrastructure. 

Sounds good but might be a tricky thing to manage IMHO. Seasonal workers, changing employment circumstances, short term unemployment, short term disability, etc etc could complicate things more than I (and maybe others) might deem reasonable to account for in a simplified tax system.

In the absence of more information, and assuming a similar revenue structure, I would be tempted to leave social support mechanisms intact until the facts were all in. I'm not sure it would be wise to revamp everything at the same time. Slow and steady seems a wiser approach to me... again, the law of unintended consequences.

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"HST REBATE????  LMAO I have never seen one"

 

Me either; the HST tax is purely a wealth redistribution scheme.

On top of that, none of the income taxes paid by the 10% are used to finance public services; that money is used to pay interest on debt.

Accordingly, to fund its growing operations the government takes on new debt annually, which adds to the total ensuring Canadians remain indebted to private banks in perpetuity.

The banksters love taxpayers.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am in favour of everyone being eligible to receive a basic living wage but only if that is also linked to doing a set amount of basic work (based on physical and mental ability).  No work, no pay."

'I couldn't agree more, but I'd like to hear how you would deal with honest to goodness deadbeats?

I mean, it's one thing for us to demand work in return for pay, but knowing the freeloader will decline and turn to crime to support himself, should society act preemptively and remove the individual from the streets before he becomes a problem, or wait, let him misbehave and then spend decades and loads of cash trying to recondition the perp?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, DEFCON said:

No work, no pay."

I always fear the natural tendency to complicate things. It's not that I disagree in principal but I think the logistics could be problematic. Single mother daycare while working at this, no car or transportation to the work site, no warm winter work clothes, back injury limitations, doctors certificates, lots of others but thats a start. I think it wise not to try and omnibus all of the changes; slow and steady wins the race. Income tax to start and income tax only... enforcement comes at a cost.

Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, DEFCON said:

"HST REBATE????  LMAO I have never seen one"

 

Me either; the HST tax is purely a wealth redistribution scheme.

On top of that, none of the income taxes paid by the 10% are used to finance public services; that money is used to pay interest on debt.

Accordingly, to fund its growing operations the government takes on new debt annually, which adds to the total ensuring Canadians remain indebted to private banks in perpetuity.

The banksters love taxpayers.

 

 

Oce upon a time our debt was not held by private banks.  The change was made some years ago to have private banks finance the debt.  Prior to that is was the Bank of Canada that held it with NO INTEREST CHARGED.  The change was to put money in the pockets of the bankers.  The cycle continues.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, boestar said:

Oce upon a time our debt was not held by private banks.  The change was made some years ago to have private banks finance the debt.  Prior to that is was the Bank of Canada that held it with NO INTEREST CHARGED.  The change was to put money in the pockets of the bankers.  The cycle continues.

 

Here is a recent article on the Bank of Canada and in particular the no interest charges.

https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/the-bank-of-canada-should-be-reinstated-to-its-original-mandated-purposes

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of this will be fun to watch.... clearly Democrats and Liberals no longer care about being abandoned by those who once supported them. It's like a new world as long time "classical" liberals flee the scene because they feel there is no other choice.

https://video.foxnews.com/v/5990336574001/#sp=show-clips

Edited by Wolfhunter

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