New posts

Socialism

Jan. 3, 2018, 10:01 a.m.
Posts: 10104
Joined: June 29, 2006

But wait, are you guys forgetting to include the trickle down from Lockheed Martin in your calculations?  Without those billions in meaningless contracts baby Jesus would be homeless.

Jan. 3, 2018, 1:12 p.m.
Posts: 1538
Joined: May 23, 2006

Posted by: chupacabra

But wait, are you guys forgetting to include the trickle down from Lockheed Martin in your calculations?  Without those billions in meaningless contracts baby Jesus would be homeless.

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/01/03/giving-war-too-many-chances/

Jan. 3, 2018, 7:41 p.m.
Posts: 18
Joined: Nov. 23, 2002

Posted by: chupacabra

So you feel the wealth gap is not large enough?

who says the wealth gap has to get bigger? consumption taxes can be configured to make it easier for those who have low incomes.

Jan. 3, 2018, 7:43 p.m.
Posts: 18
Joined: Nov. 23, 2002

Posted by: switch

Regressive?

The basic economic and social unit is the family.  It's as socialistic as it gets, and even the staunchest conservative is fine with it.

it doesn't have to be regressive.

Jan. 4, 2018, 2:31 p.m.
Posts: 10104
Joined: June 29, 2006

Posted by: syncro

Posted by: chupacabra

So you feel the wealth gap is not large enough?

who says the wealth gap has to get bigger? consumption taxes can be configured to make it easier for those who have low incomes.

I suppose it might be possible, but it would most likely be repressive due to the simple fact that people with lower incomes consume more as a percentage of their budget.  A flat consumption tax is great for savers and the rich, but consumers keep the wheels spinning on the economy so I don't see the advantage overall to this approach.

Jan. 4, 2018, 4:13 p.m.
Posts: 18
Joined: Nov. 23, 2002

Posted by: chupacabra

I suppose it might be possible, but it would most likely be repressive due to the simple fact that people with lower incomes consume more as a percentage of their budget.  A flat consumption tax is great for savers and the rich, but consumers keep the wheels spinning on the economy so I don't see the advantage overall to this approach.

true, but depending what gets taxed and by how much it doesn't have to be repressive. taxes can get jacked up on luxury items and eliminated on necessities. a grant/rebate system could also be put in place where there is a cap on the amount of tax people have to pay so that those on low incomes below a certain threshold wouldn't get hit too hard.

Jan. 5, 2018, 1:46 p.m.
Posts: 10104
Joined: June 29, 2006

Posted by: syncro

Posted by: chupacabra

I suppose it might be possible, but it would most likely be repressive due to the simple fact that people with lower incomes consume more as a percentage of their budget.  A flat consumption tax is great for savers and the rich, but consumers keep the wheels spinning on the economy so I don't see the advantage overall to this approach.

true, but depending what gets taxed and by how much it doesn't have to be repressive. taxes can get jacked up on luxury items and eliminated on necessities. a grant/rebate system could also be put in place where there is a cap on the amount of tax people have to pay so that those on low incomes below a certain threshold wouldn't get hit too hard.

IMO, taxation needs to be far more progressive than it is currently to shrink the wealth gap and I don't see us getting there by taxing yachts.  Unless we overhaul how we tax people, income taxes are the only way to even attempt to minimize the ever-growing gap between rich and poor.  Consumption taxes hit the lower income brackets harder than the wealthy because they can only buy so much, income taxes treat investment income more favorably and again put the burden on those with little income from investments and the only real wealth tax that we pay, property taxes, hit the middle class the hardest.  

To me, a progressive tax on wealth makes the most sense since the wealth gap is growing, but that remains highly controversial, especially since saving your money is the "good behaviour".

Jan. 5, 2018, 4:32 p.m.
Posts: 18
Joined: Nov. 23, 2002

Posted by: chupacabra

IMO, taxation needs to be far more progressive than it is currently to shrink the wealth gap and I don't see us getting there by taxing yachts.  Unless we overhaul how we tax people, income taxes are the only way to even attempt to minimize the ever-growing gap between rich and poor.  Consumption taxes hit the lower income brackets harder than the wealthy because they can only buy so much, income taxes treat investment income more favorably and again put the burden on those with little income from investments and the only real wealth tax that we pay, property taxes, hit the middle class the hardest.  

To me, a progressive tax on wealth makes the most sense since the wealth gap is growing, but that remains highly controversial, especially since saving your money is the "good behaviour".

The tax system is already pretty progressive, ask people who make over $100K how they feel about having more than half their income clawed away by government. Where things need to be tightened up is on really high income earners, investment incomes and corporate taxes where the very wealthy ( I don't consider $100K family income to be wealthy anymore - at least not in Vancouver) are taking advantage of all sorts of loopholes for tax credits and write offs.

For sure there is inequity in the system, but simply saying "tax the rich more" is neither an equitable nor viable solution. And consumption taxes don't necessarily have to hit the lower income brackets harder, it all depends on what's taxed and by how much.

Jan. 5, 2018, 6 p.m.
Posts: 16132
Joined: Nov. 20, 2002

Wat? I make well over 100k and definitely do NOT pay more than half my income in taxes.  More like 26-27%.


 Last edited by: KenN on Jan. 5, 2018, 6:01 p.m., edited 1 time in total.
Jan. 5, 2018, 6:08 p.m.
Posts: 18
Joined: Nov. 23, 2002

Posted by: KenN

Wat? I make well over 100k and definitely do NOT pay more than half my income in taxes. More like 26-27%.

ok - so what are your deductions?

add up provincial, federal and all the other taxes/fees you pay and I'm sure it's close to if not over 50%


 Last edited by: syncro on Jan. 5, 2018, 6:10 p.m., edited 1 time in total.
Jan. 5, 2018, 9:37 p.m.
Posts: 33143
Joined: Nov. 19, 2002

The maximum income tax rate in BC is around 47%, but the effective rate on $100K is below 30%.  Personal decductions, spousal/child deductions, CPP/EI contributions, graduated rate, etc. make the effective rate lower.

The only think I dislike about the graduated rate is that it penalizes people who work extra hours.  If someone wants to work a second job so as to get ahead, they shouldn't have to pay a higher tax rate.

It is easy to dodge our responsibilities, but we cannot dodge the consequences of dodging our responsibilities.
- Josiah Stamp

Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race.
- H.G. Wells

Jan. 7, 2018, 10:42 a.m.
Posts: 12705
Joined: Nov. 24, 2002

Posted by: ReductiMat

Referring to those who think government run organizations that collect money outside of taxes is Socialism.

I am amazed by the fact that there are people who believe that.


 Last edited by: Mic on Jan. 7, 2018, 10:46 a.m., edited 1 time in total.
Jan. 8, 2018, 12:29 p.m.
Posts: 10104
Joined: June 29, 2006

Posted by: syncro

The tax system is already pretty progressive, ask people who make over $100K how they feel about having more than half their income clawed away by government. Where things need to be tightened up is on really high income earners, investment incomes and corporate taxes where the very wealthy ( I don't consider $100K family income to be wealthy anymore - at least not in Vancouver) are taking advantage of all sorts of loopholes for tax credits and write offs.

For sure there is inequity in the system, but simply saying "tax the rich more" is neither an equitable nor viable solution. And consumption taxes don't necessarily have to hit the lower income brackets harder, it all depends on what's taxed and by how much.

This is NBR 2018, don't most of us make over 100K and have chronic back pain?  I am OK with my taxes I just want them spent wisely.  I agree with you that the high-income earners are typically the ones paying less than they should, but what consumption tax is going to make up that difference without nailing those in the middle class in the process?  Very wealthy people might buy luxury items, but most people on the top end of the scale make a much larger portion of their income from investments. I say income is income.

Jan. 8, 2018, 4:13 p.m.
Posts: 18
Joined: Nov. 23, 2002

Posted by: chupacabra
...but what consumption tax is going to make up that difference without nailing those in the middle class in the process?  Very wealthy people might buy luxury items, but most people on the top end of the scale make a much larger portion of their income from investments. I say income is income.

the whole tax system should be restructured. I would put investment income in a different category from income tax. I would change the requirements and capital gains tax structure around selling your primary residence different so flippers and investors pay more and individuals get a limited number of exemptions. We could probably go on for a while about things that could change, but the caveat is also trying to simplify the tax system at the same time to make it easier to make so it costs the government less. The end goal should be reducing costs to Canadians, this includes the cost of government and the amount of taxes we pay.

Jan. 8, 2018, 8:08 p.m.
Posts: 1538
Joined: May 23, 2006

“The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living.”

Forum jump: