Off Topic

Ontario is going to find out if guaranteed minimum income will ease poverty.

  • Last Updated:
  • Aug 22nd, 2017 9:01 pm
Tags:
None
Deal Guru
User avatar
Feb 8, 2014
13287 posts
3269 upvotes
Toronto
Syne wrote:
Mar 19th, 2017 2:40 am
I think the problem with simply lowering the tax on everyone, especially as a flat percentage of income or investment, is that while it may satisfy a certain philosophy, it doesn't really improve life for anyone. In terms of revenue, it affects the lower class very negatively in terms of gutting spending programs, and it affects the rich marginally by giving them money that will have little net effect on their quality of life.
Flat taxes appeal to the right because they are regressive which is the real goal, reward the rich and expand punishment of the poor. And they can be set at level that requires massively cutting almost all government spending to compensate, hence moving towards their libertarian fantasies
Syne wrote:
Mar 19th, 2017 2:40 am
My proposal, which is to tax productivity instead of people, would simply tax industries on their output instead of trying to catch the trickles on our tongues. This I think would also generate such a ridiculous amount of revenue, that a basic minimum income would be easily affordable. We could even base the printing of currency off of raw productivity, rather than the current borrowing/lending/easing system.
Very interesting, i'm not sure if this idea is sound but its worth exploring further.
However your taxation scheme has little to do with borrowing/lending, you can still lend someone money if you change the tax structure unless you make lending money illegal which of course would be counter productive
Lies, damned lies, statistics and alternative facts
Deal Addict
User avatar
Feb 19, 2010
4577 posts
1527 upvotes
Quentin5 wrote:
Mar 16th, 2017 6:39 pm
Why are the current rates fine, why are they better then pre harper rates? They are lower then before so the rich get richer while everyone else gets poorer, hows that better? Your spouting hype, fix the loopholes and all is fine, thats load of garbage.
Of course loopholes should be fixed but the tax structure is designed to be trickle down economics, which simply does not work. Saying its fine but fix one piece does not repair the fundamental flaws of a garbage system.
The top 1% of income earners earn 11% of the income and pay 23% of the taxes.
The top 10% earn 35% of the income and pay 55% of all the taxes.
Trudeau promised his revolt would make those lazy, greedy fat cats pay their “fair share,” so he could give tax relief to hard-working, overburdened middle-income Canadians. It was dishonest. It ignored the reality of Canada’s progressive tax system.

The top 1% of income earners in Canada (there are about 260,000) earn a minimum of $190,000 a year and an average of $361,000. Together, they earn about 11% of all the income in the country. And their income comes mostly from practicing their professions, running businesses (their own or corporations) or working in the senior public service. It is not mostly from inheritance or investment dividends.

And, importantly, the One Percenters pay more than 23% of all federal and provincial income tax.

The top 10% – those who earn over $80,000 – earn 35% of all income, and pay 55% of income taxes.
The socialists should be very careful about what they wish for. What is the tipping point for the top income earners in the country when they decide to take their act to a different country and the tax burden, by necessity, has to shift to people like YOU.

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
Deal Addict
Apr 15, 2011
2454 posts
311 upvotes
Scarborough
Conquistador wrote:
Mar 19th, 2017 9:58 am
The top 1% of income earners earn 11% of the income and pay 23% of the taxes.
The top 10% earn 35% of the income and pay 55% of all the taxes.


The socialists should be very careful about what they wish for. What is the tipping point for the top income earners in the country when they decide to take their act to a different country and the tax burden, by necessity, has to shift to people like YOU.

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
the top 1% can piss off and leave. Go to wherever you want, but you lose all patent protections or ability to do business in canada. The smartest people in the country, those who are professionals with multiple advanced degrees and not simply "businessmen" actually don't mind paying more in taxes. Those are the people we should and will keep.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Feb 19, 2010
4577 posts
1527 upvotes
blaznazn22 wrote:
Mar 19th, 2017 11:40 am
the top 1% can piss off and leave. Go to wherever you want, but you lose all patent protections or ability to do business in canada. The smartest people in the country, those who are professionals with multiple advanced degrees and not simply "businessmen" actually don't mind paying more in taxes. Those are the people we should and will keep.
Source?

Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, likes "paying more in taxes" particularly when they increasingly get pissed away by all levels of government but I'm happy to review the source material that you cite to support your point.

And it's both hilarious and ridiculous that you would suggest that the people who pay 23% of the entire tax burden can "piss off". Do you even think about what you type? :eek:
Deal Addict
Apr 15, 2011
2454 posts
311 upvotes
Scarborough
Conquistador wrote:
Mar 19th, 2017 12:01 pm
Source?

Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, likes "paying more in taxes" particularly when they increasingly get pissed away by all levels of government but I'm happy to review the source material that you cite to support your point.

And it's both hilarious and ridiculous that you would suggest that the people who pay 23% of the entire tax burden can "piss off". Do you even think about what you type? :eek:
you keep saying "nobody" likes paying taxes, but that is wrong. The middle class and lower brackets LOVE progressive minded taxes. They hate regressive taxes. The property tax is a regressive tax, because it is not conditional on income, and is something most people hate. Harper came in and cut the HST like a crook he was, and I guarantee you that it hurt the bottom brackets more than it helped them.

Those who constitute 1% of the population make 11% of the income. So let me just do some simple math here. 1% of the population is around 350,000 people. They make 11% of the income (but hold 90% of wealth--something you "neglect" to mention). Canada's GDP is $2 trillion per year, so 11% of that is $220 billion. Damn son....that works out to $628,571 per person on average. Yeah...i'd love to pay 23% of the country's taxes if I was making that much BANK.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Feb 19, 2010
4577 posts
1527 upvotes
blaznazn22 wrote:
Mar 19th, 2017 12:56 pm
you keep saying "nobody" likes paying taxes, but that is wrong. The middle class and lower brackets LOVE progressive minded taxes. They hate regressive taxes. The property tax is a regressive tax, because it is not conditional on income, and is something most people hate. Harper came in and cut the HST like a crook he was, and I guarantee you that it hurt the bottom brackets more than it helped them.

Those who constitute 1% of the population make 11% of the income. So let me just do some simple math here. 1% of the population is around 350,000 people. They make 11% of the income (but hold 90% of wealth--something you "neglect" to mention). Canada's GDP is $2 trillion per year, so 11% of that is $220 billion. Damn son....that works out to $628,571 per person on average. Yeah...i'd love to pay 23% of the country's taxes if I was making that much BANK.
Nice attempt at deflection (not really). "Loving" the system is different than "loving" to pay taxes. So, IOW, you have no source other than your opinion? That's what I thought. :facepalm:

And you can't even begin to justify 23% of all tax revenue in this country "pissing off". You're confusing, or at least trying to obfuscate, "net worth" and "wealth" with who actually carries the freight. Who would have to pay the taxes when they all "piss off" then? :eek:
Deal Addict
Jan 17, 2012
2753 posts
81 upvotes
Toronto
Syne wrote:
Mar 19th, 2017 2:40 am
I think the problem with simply lowering the tax on everyone, especially as a flat percentage of income or investment, is that while it may satisfy a certain philosophy, it doesn't really improve life for anyone. In terms of revenue, it affects the lower class very negatively in terms of gutting spending programs, and it affects the rich marginally by giving them money that will have little net effect on their quality of life.

My proposal, which is to tax productivity instead of people, would simply tax industries on their output instead of trying to catch the trickles on our tongues. This I think would also generate such a ridiculous amount of revenue, that a basic minimum income would be easily affordable. We could even base the printing of currency off of raw productivity, rather than the current borrowing/lending/easing system.
I never said anything of a flat tax and, speaking of poor philosophies, nothing has failed more than the moron idea behind socialism that government can cure poverty. Socialism has proven that the amount of taxation has little to no impact on poverty. Welfare has done nothing but create a mass of people who depend on government for their existence and who produce generations that follow suit.

The real solution to poverty is better decision making...the biggest contributing factor is having a baby outside of a committed relationship/marriage...the other is not finishing high school...and I am sure drug use and other substance abuse is up there as well. More taxation does not address those issues, does it?
Deal Guru
User avatar
Feb 8, 2014
13287 posts
3269 upvotes
Toronto
Conquistador wrote:
Mar 19th, 2017 9:58 am
The top 1% of income earners earn 11% of the income and pay 23% of the taxes.
The top 10% earn 35% of the income and pay 55% of all the taxes.


The socialists should be very careful about what they wish for. What is the tipping point for the top income earners in the country when they decide to take their act to a different country and the tax burden, by necessity, has to shift to people like YOU.

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
Even if we assume your numbers are correct they are meant to complain about progressive taxation. Cry us a river that progressive taxation is progressive. If they want to leave then great, others will take their place, the 1%ers are not Stephen Hawkings and unreplaceable despite the propaganda. Hell Warren Buffet has publicly said if anyone doesn't want money because of the tax obligations he will gladly accept their cash. Please take him up on this offer. So will i or other Canadian, please show us the millions if not billions of examples of people who will say no to a billion dollars if they have to pay Canadian tax. You can also look at history, much higher tax rates on top earners were found with much better economic times then today. Of course you can just deny these facts.
Interesting that anyone who wants a vibrant working class is a socialist, your fear is not failure, its fear of success, if people realize that trickle down economics is a bad idea they will stop supporting its expansion. That is why lies, alternative facts and discrimination/classism is associated with the right, you have to keep the masses voting against their own interests so they don't realize their mistakes.
Lies, damned lies, statistics and alternative facts
Deal Addict
User avatar
Feb 19, 2010
4577 posts
1527 upvotes
Quentin5 wrote:
Mar 19th, 2017 2:49 pm
Even if we assume your numbers are correct they are meant to complain about progressive taxation. Cry us a river that progressive taxation is progressive. If they want to leave then great, others will take their place, the 1%ers are not Stephen Hawkings and unreplaceable despite the propaganda. Hell Warren Buffet has publicly said if anyone doesn't want money because of the tax obligations he will gladly accept their cash. Please take him up on this offer. So will i or other Canadian, please show us the millions if not billions of examples of people who will say no to a billion dollars if they have to pay 23% tax. You can also look at history, much higher tax rates on top earners were found with much better economic times then today. Of course you can just deny these facts.
Interesting that anyone who wants a vibrant working class is a socialist, your fear is not failure, its fear of success, if people realize that trickle down economics is a bad idea they will stop supporting its expansion. That is why lies, alternative facts and discrimination/classism is associated with the right, you have to keep the masses voting against their own interests so they don't realize their mistakes.
Had to quote your whole post for the pure comedic value. :lol:

Nobody said anything about a 23% tax rate on the 1%. 23% is the percentage of total tax revenue in this country paid for by the 1%.

Maybe you and that blazazn dude can put your heads together to come with a solid economic & taxation plan to replace that 23% of government revenues when they all "piss off" as Mr. blazn and yourself seem to suggest would be such a great idea. :eek: :facepalm:
Deal Guru
User avatar
Feb 8, 2014
13287 posts
3269 upvotes
Toronto
Conquistador wrote:
Mar 19th, 2017 3:42 pm
Had to quote your whole post for the pure comedic value. :lol:

Nobody said anything about a 23% tax rate on the 1%. 23% is the percentage of total tax revenue in this country paid for by the 1%. Maybe you and that blazazn dude can put your heads together to come with a solid economic & taxation plan to replace that 23% of government revenues when they all "piss off" as Mr. blazn and yourself seem to suggest would be such a great idea. :eek: :facepalm:
My mistake, i replaced the 23% with Canadian as you were posting. Interesting that a progressive can admit a mistake while the right makes up more and more grandiose lies and refuses to accept reality. When your lies fail you just invent bigger lies to cover for it, or scapegoat as necessary.

My point is unchanged. Why did not the rich leave decades ago when tax rates were higher then today?
I challenge them to leave , anyone who accepts them at lower or no tax rates will screw their own economies as well. Since the right claims anything except trickle down economics will fail lets try the historical brand of "failure" which actually worked great. Of course the real fear the right has is success, the point is to make the rich more wealthy.

Why is not the economy doing amazing today, we have enacted lower tax rates then generations past, the Kansas experience dramatically lowered taxes for the rich and raised them on everyone else and is doing exceptional badly as a result. Corporations sometimes pay single digit and even zero percent taxes. Why is the economy not on fire? Wealth inequality is not decreasing despite all the trickle down economics we have been following.

Because you have to deny reality to keep your lies going.

Which is why Donald Trump may be the best thing to ever happen to America, having to live with the consequences of lies will have a bigger impact then all the lies you can convince people to accept.
24 million kicked off healthcare, allowing coal companies to poison drinking water sources, cutting medicare and possibly even social security, millions suffering because of no more meals on wheels or heat assistance, denying climate change and giving royalty breaks to coal companies. Thats just for starters. When you believe lies the consequences are a stark reminder of the cost.
Lies, damned lies, statistics and alternative facts
Deal Addict
User avatar
Sep 1, 2013
3408 posts
190 upvotes
Quentin5 wrote:
Mar 19th, 2017 2:49 pm
Even if we assume your numbers are correct they are meant to complain about progressive taxation. Cry us a river that progressive taxation is progressive. If they want to leave then great, others will take their place, the 1%ers are not Stephen Hawkings and unreplaceable despite the propaganda. Hell Warren Buffet has publicly said if anyone doesn't want money because of the tax obligations he will gladly accept their cash. Please take him up on this offer. So will i or other Canadian, please show us the millions if not billions of examples of people who will say no to a billion dollars if they have to pay Canadian tax. You can also look at history, much higher tax rates on top earners were found with much better economic times then today. Of course you can just deny these facts.
Interesting that anyone who wants a vibrant working class is a socialist, your fear is not failure, its fear of success, if people realize that trickle down economics is a bad idea they will stop supporting its expansion. That is why lies, alternative facts and discrimination/classism is associated with the right, you have to keep the masses voting against their own interests so they don't realize their mistakes.
- There is something you don't understand: a progressive tax system means that wealthier/higher income people pay a higher percentage of their wealth in taxes (as wealth/income goes up, the percentage of tax owed progressively rises). In this context, 'progressive' does not mean 'better'.

- I don't agree with you that the 1% who leave because they are taxed too heavily are so easy to replace. You are talking about highly skilled, disciplined and hard working professionals, or business owners who had the ambition and entrepreneurial drive to build successful companies. Such people are somewhat rare (which is why they are in the 1% in the first place), but are critical to have a modern, developed country. Do you think you could do what they do, and still have spare time to spout off about trickle down economics on RFD all the time? Smiling Face With Open Mouth

- You said that "much higher tax rates on top earners were found with much better economic times then today" - pray tell, what period in history are you referring to? I know that taxes were very high on top earners to pay for world wars, but I am sure you don't want to start a world war just to have a more progressive tax system.

- You refer to the middle class as the working class. Well guess what, most of the 1% work hard too, some of them worked very hard, for a very long time, and took more risks than you typical middle class person in order to get into the 1%. The people you are debating with think that a vibrant society is one where you are rewarded for this hard work and risk taking, instead of having the majority of your income expropriated just because you were successful.

- I think you show a particular hubris in saying that the masses vote against their own interest, as if you are a better judge than them as to what their best interests are. What makes you claim to have this superior insight?
Deal Addict
User avatar
Sep 1, 2013
3408 posts
190 upvotes
Quentin5 wrote:
Mar 19th, 2017 3:53 pm
Why is not the economy doing amazing today, we have enacted lower tax rates then generations past, the Kansas experience dramatically lowered taxes for the rich and raised them on everyone else and is doing exceptional badly as a result. Corporations sometimes pay single digit and even zero percent taxes. Why is the economy not on fire? Wealth inequality is not decreasing despite all the trickle down economics we have been following.
I've explained this to you before, but still not sure if you are getting the message:

"Corporations" are not the same as "The rich"

Shares of corporations are owned by people, directly and indirectly, of all economic classes, not just the rich. I myself own quite a bit of stock, but am just a working class stiff. I live in a modest home, drive an 8 year old compact car, rarely dine out anywhere more expensive than MacDonalds (I do, however, occasionally treat myself to bottle of single malt Scotch).

When a corporation pays taxes, it is not "the rich" paying them. Taxes are conceptually just another expense to the corporation, which is borne by the shareholders, employees and customers, most of whom are not rich. Who bears the heaviest burden is not so clear:

https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010 ... ncome-tax/

Before you throw around words like "denying reality", get your own fact straight first.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Feb 19, 2010
4577 posts
1527 upvotes
Quentin5 wrote:
Mar 19th, 2017 3:53 pm
My mistake, i replaced the 23% with Canadian as you were posting. Interesting that a progressive can admit a mistake while the right makes up more and more grandiose lies and refuses to accept reality. When your lies fail you just invent bigger lies to cover for it, or scapegoat as necessary.

Because you have to deny reality to keep your lies going.

Which is why Donald Trump may be the best thing to ever happen to America, having to live with the consequences of lies will have a bigger impact then all the lies you can convince people to accept.
24 million kicked off healthcare, allowing coal companies to poison drinking water sources, cutting medicare and possibly even social security, millions suffering because of no more meals on wheels or heat assistance, denying climate change and giving royalty breaks to coal companies. Thats just for starters. When you believe lies the consequences are a stark reminder of the cost.
You started off OK and then went off your nut with all the rambling and ranting about lying. What did I lie about?

That you don't understand the conversation hardly makes one a liar. Stop embarrassing yourself. :facepalm:

I'm still waiting for your economic plan that replaces 23% of all government tax revenues. You, too, blaznazn. This should be good....:lol:
Deal Guru
User avatar
Feb 8, 2014
13287 posts
3269 upvotes
Toronto
Conquistador wrote:
Mar 19th, 2017 7:56 pm
You started off OK and then went off your nut with all the rambling and ranting about lying. What did I lie about?

That you don't understand the conversation hardly makes one a liar. Stop embarrassing yourself. :facepalm:

I'm still waiting for your economic plan that replaces 23% of all government tax revenues. You, too, blaznazn. This should be good....:lol:
I speak of the right wing ideology your subscribing to. Notice how often i say right wing.
And if you claim your not a right wing supporter then why spout their nonsense and refuse to accept trickle down economics is not the answer, especially with its repeated failures, several of which i have already pointed out?
And the plan is quite simple, raise taxes on the rich and stop giving them billions and billions and billions of dollars that ends up as dead money. Oh and go after tax evasion, instead of the CRA excuse that it costs too much to go after wealthy tax cheats (but they can go after a non rich person with no difficulty).
Your the one embarrassing yourself, but of course if you refuse to believe it its not happening :facepalm:
Lies, damned lies, statistics and alternative facts
Deal Addict
Jul 12, 2007
1806 posts
232 upvotes
Quentin5 wrote:
Mar 19th, 2017 8:08 pm
I speak of the right wing ideology your subscribing to. Notice how often i say right and right wing.
And if you claim your not a right wing supporter then why spout their nonsense and refuse to accept trickle down economics is not the answer, especially with its repeated failures, several of which i have already pointed out?
And the plan is quite simple, raise taxes on the rich and stop giving them billions and billions and billions of dollars that ends up as dead money. Oh and go after tax evasion, instead of the CRA excuse that it costs too much to go after wealthy tax cheats (but they can go after a non rich person with no difficulty).
Your the one embarrassing yourself, but of course if you refuse to believe it its not happening :facepalm:
I totally agree. Rich people should be taxed at 98%, and be left with 2% of their wages. That is more than enough for them to support their families, after all, they aren't really humans they are just sources of money for the poor. We should also clone them, so we could have more of them to support lower income earners. Doctors, and people who have gone to school for many years, should definitely be penalized for earning more money. We should offer no incentive to specialized jobs, maybe just scrap them, I mean, who really needs lawyers and all those rich people anyways (once of course we have them cloned). I don't mean to make fun of you, but you bring it upon yourself. Stop following Bernie Sanders on facebook, he's obviously inhibiting your thought process.

Top