Left vs right, right vs left

Recommended Posts

Always lots of talk from some folks that the 1% ers are getting away with not paying their share of taxes, well folks according to the following report, they actually pay 17.9% of the total tax bill. As for the bottom 40%, well read on....  ?

Trudeau is right, 40% of Canadians pay no income taxes

But the top 20% appears to be picking up the rest of the bill, writes

  • Calgary Herald
  • 8 Feb 2019
  • Ted Rechtshaffen.
img?regionKey=qwAsQQ7NaFpSqVKIBb5%2f2A%3d%3dThe Fraser Institute’s Canadian Tax Simulator 2017 found that households with incomes ranging from zero to $80,843 paid only 4.6 per cent of all Canadian personal tax paid.

Many people were upset with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau this week for saying “low-income families don’t benefit from tax breaks because they don’t pay taxes.”

Of course, some were upset because they felt it was untrue. But Trudeau was speaking the complete truth when it comes to income taxes (HST, realty taxes and other consumption taxes are another story). It is just a truth that he may not want many Canadians to know.

On average, two of every five Canadian households do not pay anything towards federally and provincially funded expenses such as health care, education, community and social services, national defence, public safety and even the good old Canada Revenue Agency. One household of every five pays much more than 70 per cent of all of those costs.

It didn’t used to be this way, but it is now.

The Fraser Institute’s Canadian Tax Simulator 2017 looked at Canadian households with incomes ranging from zero to $80,843, representing the bottom 40 per cent of households by income, and found they paid 4.6 per cent of all the personal tax paid. That seems like a low number, but it still isn’t zero.

How does 4.6 per cent become zero? It happens when the tax that is paid is then given back (and more) by the federal and provincial governments.

As it turns out, quite a few benefits are paid out to Canadians with household income in the lower 40 per cent — particularly those with children. The CRA even has a wonderful online calculator that will quantify just how large those benefits might be.

To better illustrate this zeroper-cent tax bill, I ran three different scenarios through the calculator. All three scenarios were made up of a family with two working parents and three children (aged one, four and six) living in Northern Ontario, paying $15,000 a year in rent.

In the first scenario, each parent made $22,650 for a household income of $45,300. Based on the Ernst & Young personal tax calculator, the household should pay a total of $4,564 in federal and provincial income tax.

This income level lines up at the 20th percentile mark outlined by the Fraser Institute — or exactly in the middle of the bottom 40 per cent in terms of household income.

But this household actually receives $14,758 from government. Although the Ernst & Young calculator suggests it should pay $4,564 in tax, and the Fraser Institute says it pays a small amount of taxes, it actually gets tax-free benefits of $19,321.96.

These benefits consist of $17,485.80 from the Canada Child Benefit; $1,278.72 from Ontario Trillium Benefits (including Ontario Energy credit, Northern Ontario energy credit and Ontario sales tax credit); and a $557.44 GST/HST tax credit.

Of course, not every household looks like this or has three children, but the numbers for this household are quite staggering. It effectively does not pay any tax, and then receives $14,758 tax free from other Canadian taxpayers.

What if we move up the income range to what is roughly the 30th percentile, or $60,420 of household income, split equally?

This household should pay $7,596 in income taxes, according to the Ernst & Young tax calculator (assuming no deductions), and would receive $13,738.32 in tax-free benefits. In other words, it effectively receives $6,142 from other Canadian taxpayers.

A household at the very top of this group, the 40th percentile, or $80,844 of income, should pay $11,690 in income taxes (again, assuming no deductions), and would receive $10,282.44 in taxfree benefits. It effectively pays $1,408 in tax.

Keep in mind that people in this group are no different than anyone else and want to avoid paying taxes if possible. If there are any charitable donations, sizable health-care expenses, RRSP deductions, or any other kind of deduction, this household has probably been able to eliminate that $1,408 in taxes.

These examples are not meant to be a definitive study of taxpayers, but are merely being used to prove a point.

The Fraser Institute truly underestimates the numbers when it says that the top one per cent is paying 17.9 per cent of income taxes, and the top 20 per cent are paying 64.4 per cent.

Consider that if the bottom 40 per cent pays much less than zero per cent of income taxes, after adding the exceptionally large Canada Child Benefit and several other tax-free payouts, then someone else is picking up their tax bill. The top 20 per cent is likely paying 70 per cent or more of all income taxes.

Is this tax fairness? It is certainly fair to some.

In the United States, taxation has been moving in a completely different direction. But when we hear about the “evil” one per cent in the U.S., we must recognize that the Canadian one per cent is paying a huge amount of our tax bill.

Indeed, taxes are meaningfully rising for higher-income Canadians. In Alberta, the top tax bracket was 39 per cent in 2014. Today, it is 48 per cent, a 23 per cent increase. In Ontario, the top tax bracket was 46.4 per cent in 2013. Today, it is 53.5 per cent, an increase of 15 per cent.

The prime minister is absolutely right: tax cuts do not help 40 per cent of Canadians because they do not pay any effective income tax. How do you like them apples?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 957
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I don't live in Ontario and am therefore not really entitled to an opinion but here it is anyway - I'm not a big DF fan but after the gross mis-management of the province by the Liberals can anyone re

Posted Images

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this…

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20”. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving). The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,”but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!” “That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Now far to common to have significance.... idiots have become a dime a dozen and they have lost momentum as a result. So, kneel, bow, crawl on your belly or squeal like a pig... It just doesn't matter. 


And that's because, In order to stand out now, they have to continually up the ante to get noticed. Suddenly racial slurs are A OK and fit nicely with progressive agendas:

"One group of students even interrupted Question Period with screams of “Doug Ford can kiss my ass” and “You’re a f—ing cracker” aimed at the premier."


Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to post
Share on other sites

Long lines of the new oppressors:


Now, if this guy owned a gym would he be biased against fat people? What if he was a vegan, would he be predisposed to rule negatively in agricultural cases? If he walked to work, the entire transportation system would be at risk, right? There is no limit to silly scenarios is there?

Maybe we are well served by people who can put their beliefs aside and make rulings according to the law and not what they think the law should be. And what happened to the Democratic notion that your faith shouldn’t exclude you from public service? It now seems you must believe what leftists believe in order to avoid attack. I have certain expectations and I come from a world where Catholic Cops stand guard at abortion clinics if so directed. BTW, I would want them fired for refusing.....

For political atheists like myself, the hypocrisy of liberals and democrats is becoming pervasive and scary:


Meanwhile, back in the great white north, Mr Scheer is "sickened and appalled" by JT's conduct in the SNC- Lavalin business. I can't wait to see his medical condition when he finds out what the company was doing circa 2011-2012 as the PCs looked on and smiled indulgently. Now, raise your hand if you're surprised by her testimony....


What has actually happened here is that the Liberals have decided to run with the most innocuous thing that SNC Lavalin has actually done and that has blown up in their face.... wait for the rest of it to come out. This is but a small taste of things to come IMO:


Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of Canada’s Indigenous languages can’t be saved and should be allowed to die natural deaths

There’s a growing expectation that Canadian taxpayers have an obligation to return to common usage every existing Indigenous language in the country.


“ Recently, he's been working with the Assembly of First Nations to put a price tag on language revitalization. His figures say it will cost between $500 million and $1 billion a year. Forever. And he says it's "non-negotiable" that such a program target all languages equally.”



Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is an interesting dilemma for Christian schools and leftists will use it regardless of the decision undertaken.

If they fire this teacher for failing to maintain the standard she agreed to as a condition of employment they will be accused of violating her charter rights. If they choose to ignore it, the very same people will accuse them of religious hypocrisy. It seems like a no win scenario for anyone other than rate payers who benefit from the fact that some 50% of the funding is privately sourced.


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Wolfhunter said:

Here is an interesting dilemma for Christian schools and leftists will use it regardless of the decision undertaken.

If they fire this teacher for failing to maintain the standard she agreed to as a condition of employment they will be accused of violating her charter rights. If they choose to ignore it, the very same people will accuse them of religious hypocrisy. It seems like a no win scenario for anyone other than rate payers who benefit from the fact that some 50% of the funding is privately sourced.


Why did she agree to it in the first place. Sounds about the same as "put me on probation and I will be a good boy."

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

However as soon as someone makes a disparaging remark against someone based on race, creed, sex, colour, religion or nationality.  They lost the argument.  Because if you have to stoop to that level you never had an argument to begin with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Liberalism Is Dehumanizing

Liberal ideology is rife with inconsistencies, but none is greater than how its supposedly animating motivation — human compassion — is contradicted by its devaluation of human life.


Liberals have long claimed superior compassion and demonized conservatives as being uncaring. This has always been untrue while superficially appearing to be true, and liberals have evangelized countless young minds with this seductive canard.

It's difficult to convince embryonic liberal activists that individual liberals may be compassionate but their governing ideology and the inevitable consequences of their policies are not. It's also difficult to make them see that conservatives are compassionate and tolerant when we stand for unchanging moral standards and openly disagree with policies that liberals successfully peddle as compassionate.

But beyond the superficial rhetoric, liberalism does not stand the test of compassion, because it subordinates individuality to identity groups and the collective and degrades human dignity. One of the great ironies of secular humanism is its purported championship of mankind as the measure of all things while undermining what makes us human. How can a philosophy that devalues human individuality ultimately be compassionate toward human beings?

The most obvious example is liberals' extreme advocacy of abortion, making it a holy sacrament that is not about individual choice but a paranoid conviction that pro-lifers threaten women's rights, health care and autonomy.

Another example is socialism, which the leftist-dominated Democratic Party is virtually embracing today. Throughout history, socialists have duped millions of well-meaning people into believing that free market capitalism is evil and socialism is noble. I don't even subscribe to the glib pitch that it is wonderful in theory but doesn't work in practice. It's also unappealing in theory because it is fundamentally at odds with human nature and the human spirit. It arrogantly assumes it can remake human beings as irresponsive to incentives and devoid of their competitive spirit and their natural yearning for liberty.

In practice, socialism has consistently impoverished and enslaved. With its top-down control of the economy, it obliterates individual economic liberty and thus robs individuals of an essential part of their humanity. Government-forced transfer payments — taking other people's money to satisfy one's sense of moral self-worth — is a far cry from charity and compassion. I know of no conservatives who oppose a social safety net for the truly needy, provided it incentivizes the able-bodied to return to the workforce.

When it comes to health care, of course conservatives want to maximize people's access to the highest-quality care at the lowest prices and most choices, but they dispute that forcing everyone to be insured helps achieve any of those goals efficiently. What is true of socialized medicine is true of socialism generally: It doesn't work anywhere in the long run — including in Sweden, truth be told. How compassionate are socialism and less extreme big-government liberalism when they destroy economic growth and prosperity and, left to their own devices, often lead to totalitarianism? Socialism, just like much of economic and political liberalism, is more about people seeking power and control over individual lives.

The latest rage is intersectionality, which establishes new hierarchies of victimhood and privilege based on the overlapping and interrelated categories of disadvantages that groups of people have experienced. We must no longer look at discrimination through the "single-axis framework" of race, gender, class, disability, etc., but understand how the various identities intersect. Some people have multiple "burdens" or "disadvantages," such that black women, for example, suffer more discrimination than black men and white women. Unless we refine our thinking to account for these combinations of disabilities, the most disadvantaged will be ignored. Isn't this exhausting? Who really thinks like this if not forced to?

This is why feminists have recently been shamed for promoting their singular cause while presumably ignoring the plight of transgender people, gay people, the disabled and black women in particular. It is why intersectionality zealots are questioning whether Sen. Kamala Harris is "black enough" to be president, as her father is Jamaican and her mother is Indian. She may not be black enough because she is not African-American — a bona fide descendant of American slaves. It is why race- and gender-obsessed people are upset that the three Democratic presidential front-runners are white men.

It doesn't seem to occur to these self-described supporters of democracy that three white guys happen to be ahead because people are voicing their opinions. It also doesn't seem to bother the Democrats expressing their preference for white men that though they won't dare challenge the orthodoxy of intersectionality, they are violating its premises with their voting inclinations.

Among other things, intersectionality is dehumanizing because people are demonized or protected depending on their group, not on what they have done or what they have personally experienced. How can people not see that this kind of thinking violates our basic sense of justice and accountability? Intersectionality, perhaps even more than the rudimentary forms of identity politics that preceded it, is also damaging to people because it forces them to focus on themselves as victims of disadvantaged groups rather than encourage them to strive, as individuals, to be the best they can be.

If the results of liberals' policies — as opposed to their good intentions, posturing and virtue signaling — count for anything and if the ideas they promote are as dehumanizing as they appear, though many individual liberals may have enormous hearts, the ideology to which they are in thrall is stunningly uncompassionate.




Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.