Personal Finance

Income Over $150k To Be Heavily Taxed

  • Last Updated:
  • Sep 15th, 2014 8:25 pm
Tags:
None
Deal Expert
Mar 23, 2009
16637 posts
3636 upvotes
Toronto
Yep. Kaboom!

The NDP vote against the budget.
Jr. Member
Feb 17, 2013
170 posts
19 upvotes
Forget incomes over $150K, I'd like to see the 1%ers get taxed 90%. That's being effective and resetting the equilibrium.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 31, 2009
1079 posts
575 upvotes
KOI423b wrote:
May 2nd, 2014 11:52 am
Forget incomes over $150K, I'd like to see the 1%ers get taxed 90%. That's being effective and resetting the equilibrium.
Forget taxing based on high earnings, I'd like to see the amount for children eliminated. Would like to see the numbers on how that would help the government bottom line.

Don't know why people who have worked hard to put themselves into good high paying jobs get targetted..

Though admittedly, a lot of people making $150,000+ are going to be in a position where they can get around having to have a T4 with that much income on it.
Newbie
Jan 29, 2013
84 posts
9 upvotes
unknownone wrote:
May 2nd, 2014 12:00 pm
Forget taxing based on high earnings, I'd like to see the amount for children eliminated. Would like to see the numbers on how that would help the government bottom line.
But wait!! That will only disadvantage those with lower incomes that still seem to think it's smart to pump out lots of kids!
Deal Expert
User avatar
Oct 26, 2003
30361 posts
2486 upvotes
Winnipeg
KOI423b wrote:
May 2nd, 2014 11:52 am
Forget incomes over $150K, I'd like to see the 1%ers get taxed 90%. That's being effective and resetting the equilibrium.
canadian citizenship is worth a lot, but there is a ceiling which people might view it as too expensive, there are lots Americans giving up their citizenship to avoid US tax, and their tax is lower than ours... we live in a free country, people can make choices and they can vote with their wallet
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 31, 2009
1079 posts
575 upvotes
Briightside wrote:
May 2nd, 2014 12:02 pm
But wait!! That will only disadvantage those with lower incomes that still seem to think it's smart to pump out lots of kids!
I see no downside.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Oct 26, 2003
30361 posts
2486 upvotes
Winnipeg
unknownone wrote:
May 2nd, 2014 12:04 pm
I see no downside.
lets tax the rich more until they leave the country :lol:
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 31, 2009
1079 posts
575 upvotes
divx wrote:
May 2nd, 2014 12:06 pm
lets tax the rich more until they leave the country :lol:
That's where the tax on jet fuel comes in, at least then you'll tax them heavily one more time as they leave!
Member
Nov 25, 2011
422 posts
60 upvotes
201-8 Sampson Mews, …
They can move to 'land of reap the benefits from our society but not pay for them'. They will be welcomed there with open arms!
Sr. Member
Apr 6, 2007
506 posts
58 upvotes
EugW wrote:
May 1st, 2014 11:55 pm
A 3.12% marginal rate increase is huge. Yeah, the top 1-2% of the population can more easily absorb that 3.12% increase, but it's still a very big jump… all just so the Liberals can try to keep themselves in power for one more year.

I almost wonder if Wynne has thrown a Hail Mary so that they can blame the NDP when they force an election.
A 3.12% increase in tax is 5.8% of a high wage earner's original after tax dollars. (100-46.41= 53.59, 3.12/53.59 = 5.8%)

People who think this is good aren't really thinking. You are not taxing the wealthy, you are taxing the upper middle class. And if you start taxing the wealthy more, they'll just move, and take their money and the jobs they create with them.

The example is the Saskatchewan economy - the resources were always there. Once the government changed to a more tax friendly regime, the corporations moved in and everyone benefited, right down to the people who use social programs because there was simply more money in the kitty.

This is a hare-brained, lame attempt to gain populist vote and stay in power. Glad to see it rejected. I won't feel sorry for Kathleen when the door hits her in the ***** . Good riddance to the Liberals.
Deal Addict
Nov 24, 2004
3786 posts
469 upvotes
Toronto
florch wrote:
May 2nd, 2014 2:45 pm
You are not taxing the wealthy, you are taxing the upper middle class. And if you start taxing the wealthy more, they'll just move, and take their money and the jobs they create with them.
Is this actually the case? That argument gets made over and over again, but from what I have read, there is little actual evidence that moderate tax increases cause people to move away in large numbers or that they stifle economic growth, except perhaps in extreme cases (very high net worth individuals using tax havens etc.)
The example is the Saskatchewan economy - the resources were always there. Once the government changed to a more tax friendly regime, the corporations moved in and everyone benefited, right down to the people who use social programs because there was simply more money in the kitty.
Here you seem to be mixing corporate and individual taxes. Also, even if the resources were always there, global resource prices fluctuate and can have an enormous effect on corporate activity.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Feb 1, 2005
2137 posts
158 upvotes
florch wrote:
May 2nd, 2014 2:45 pm
A 3.12% increase in tax is 5.8% of a high wage earner's original after tax dollars. (100-46.41= 53.59, 3.12/53.59 = 5.8%)

People who think this is good aren't really thinking. You are not taxing the wealthy, you are taxing the upper middle class. And if you start taxing the wealthy more, they'll just move, and take their money and the jobs they create with them.

The example is the Saskatchewan economy - the resources were always there. Once the government changed to a more tax friendly regime, the corporations moved in and everyone benefited, right down to the people who use social programs because there was simply more money in the kitty.

This is a hare-brained, lame attempt to gain populist vote and stay in power. Glad to see it rejected. I won't feel sorry for Kathleen when the door hits her in the ***** . Good riddance to the Liberals.
Examples are useless because they are so context sensitive. Look at Norway's tax regime. Not so friendly and it's basically doing better than any other country in the world.
Sr. Member
Apr 6, 2007
506 posts
58 upvotes
KOI423b wrote:
May 2nd, 2014 11:52 am
Forget incomes over $150K, I'd like to see the 1%ers get taxed 90%. That's being effective and resetting the equilibrium.
Dumb. All of the really productive people would hit that threshold and then take the rest of the year off to look for somewhere else to live.
Sr. Member
Apr 6, 2007
506 posts
58 upvotes
ShopperfiendTO wrote:
May 2nd, 2014 3:53 pm
Examples are useless because they are so context sensitive. Look at Norway's tax regime. Not so friendly and it's basically doing better than any other country in the world.
So you think Ontario can afford to be that tax unfriendly, and it won't have any effect on business? There is a tipping point, lower tax regimes tend to thrive. Norway is an anomaly.

Our context is a quasi-rust belt economy that needs to transform and attract business, not chase brains and business away.

Top