Personal Finance

Income Over $150k To Be Heavily Taxed

  • Last Updated:
  • Sep 15th, 2014 8:25 pm
Tags:
None
Sr. Member
Apr 6, 2007
506 posts
60 upvotes
Little Tim wrote: First of all, relax - take a deep breath - exhaaaaaaaaaaale... Now, doesn't that feel better? :)

Secondly, the world has never seen a capitalist country. Neither has there ever been such a thing as a socialist (or communist for that matter) country on this planet. These are theoretical constructs that have never actually been realized. The type of societal/economic system we have in North America is deeply regulated with very little in the form of true free markets. There's taxes, there's consumer protection, there's competition bureaus, there's environmental legislation, there's labour laws, there's protection of intellectual property etc. If anything I would argue that the US and Canada are tilting more towards socialism than capitalism if those are seen as two extremes on a spectrum. What is usually referred to as socialist/communist countries are really nothing more than straight dictatorships and have nothing to do with the actual theory of socialism or communism.

In addition to getting your terminology straight I would urge you to actually read posts before you respond to them. You can for example do that while you're taking that deep breath! :) I never said that tax rate would NOT factor into the decision by a corporation or individual to settle somewhere. What I said is that tax rate or the overall financial package (tax credits for example) is just one of many factors. My point still stands and that is that I have yet to see evidence that tax rate on its own is enough to cause a mass exodus in or out of any economic area - at least for any sustained economic benefit to that area. Ireland used to be the golden child of all right-wingers when they used low tax rates to lure corporations to the fair island, but many of the jobs that were created were low paying, call centre type jobs and as we all know, the entire house of cards soon collapsed spectacularly.

As for some slightly more socialist leaning countries, just look towards Scandinavia and your argument will again take a huge hit. Those are high-tax countries with high social benefits (free university education for example), but you don't see the high tax bracket people leaving those countries in droves.



I hate to bring this up, but would you say that Thorsten Heins gave more to society and produced more? I know it's not an original example, but many more can be given. I agree that someone who started out with their two bare hands and worked their way up to create a successful corporation definitely deserve rewards for their incredible drive and hard work. Problem is, those are extremely rare cases. High income earners often come from the financial industry, which has arguably been the cause of most of our current financial problems (without government regulation - nevermind intervention - it would have been much, much worse - so much for the free market...). Also, you will find many high paid corporate officials who never created much themselves, but rather got cushy high-paying jobs due to family relations and influence. Read this book for example.

I am very much in favour of creating a friendly economic environment for start-ups and small businesses, because I think that is where you will truly find hard working people. Some of them will make it into that high-earning club that you speak of. However, most of the ones already there are not self-made, but rather stand on the shoulders of money already made.

Btw, by the statement that you are arguing a point that doesn't affect you today, I assume that you are very young. I used to be young and idealistic as well. I was very much a libertarian, believing in the free market and the good in human nature. As I've read more and experienced more, those views have changed. I have no political affiliations and I lean in no direction, but I like to stay pragmatic and focus on evidence and what works.



That is Reaganomics in a nutshell and it has never worked. The only time in history that we had conditions that were close to pure capitalism were during and right after the industrial revolution. Very little government regulation and the results were massive labour exploitation with starving wages and inhuman working conditions. Huge environmental damage as well, but also huge profits. That's your evidence right there. I don't believe for a second that it would be any different today if another experiment with pure capitalism was attempted.
Wow, did you ever take me the wrong way. First of all, my pulse never came off the floor. Second, I'm not that young at all, but I've worked from sweeping floors to a position of large responsibility, so don't assume too much about me. I'm middle class, and my ambition to be upper middle class isn't limited by my age. I never asked for pure capitalism, but for your tale of 80's American politics we could also look at any other number of examples where incentive based economics benefit everyone. How is Norway or Alberta's rising tied working out for them? How did 1980's economic policy work in the USSR and whose people are better off today? I consider myself more pragmatic than idealistic, in fact I think that those that think we can all hold hands and sing kumbaya and then everyone goes out and makes the same money and works hard for the greater good is far more idealistic than an incentive based model.

The origin of the discussion was that in an attempt to buy low and middle income voters, the Wynne government attacked the middle class, AGAIN. There, that's the first time I've raised my voice. I felt that they've gone way too far -taking an extra 5.8% of a tax payer's remaining earnings is extreme in my opinion. I think it started with the payroll health tax that started at about $30K of income and peaked at about $70k of income was Dalton's first attack on the middle class and we've had 10 years of more of the same. Factor in massive corruption and waste, and I think we'd all be better off spending the money ourselves rather than trusting them with another dime.

As for the tilt of North American economies, I agree with you, but while we become a softer society, there's also a noticeable abdication of responsibility among regular people as we seek cradle to grave security.
Sr. Member
Apr 6, 2007
506 posts
60 upvotes
JHW wrote: This kind of statement, like "a rising tide lifts all boats", is pithy but IMO idealistic and easy to refute. The idea that all high-income earners give more to society than they take -- that they produce more, that this is because of sacrifice and risk -- is a blanket statement that may hold true in some cases (e.g., entrepreneurs) but is demonstrably untrue in a huge number of others.
It's a generality, but a true one. I'm talking in the context of a good economy benefiting everyone, and assuming that a good economy is financially balanced.

What individuals produce and take from society is a different issue. It's not perfect in every example, but in the private sector, employers have to pay more for top talent, and they do it because it's worth it.

Do you have examples of upper middle class salaried workers in the private sector that don't produce more than they take? I'd like to learn from you.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Oct 26, 2003
39293 posts
6324 upvotes
Winnipeg
florch wrote: It's a generality, but a true one. I'm talking in the context of a good economy benefiting everyone, and assuming that a good economy is financially balanced.

What individuals produce and take from society is a different issue. It's not perfect in every example, but in the private sector, employers have to pay more for top talent, and they do it because it's worth it.

Do you have examples of upper middle class salaried workers in the private sector that don't produce more than they take? I'd like to learn from you.
private sector is profit driven, therefore such thing would be kept to a minimum if the company is been efficient.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Mar 23, 2009
22509 posts
8925 upvotes
Toronto
florch wrote: The origin of the discussion was that in an attempt to buy low and middle income voters, the Wynne government attacked the middle class, AGAIN. There, that's the first time I've raised my voice. I felt that they've gone way too far -taking an extra 5.8% of a tax payer's remaining earnings is extreme in my opinion. I think it started with the payroll health tax that started at about $30K of income and peaked at about $70k of income was Dalton's first attack on the middle class and we've had 10 years of more of the same. Factor in massive corruption and waste, and I think we'd all be better off spending the money ourselves rather than trusting them with another dime.
Yeah, everyone here should be concerned. That payroll health tax dings most employees, but independent contractors don't pay this.

Technically, it's the employer that pays the EHT, but it's funding that could be used better, including used towards pensions or just as regular pay.
Member
Nov 25, 2011
425 posts
63 upvotes
Toronto
divx wrote: private sector is profit driven, therefore such thing would be kept to a minimum if the company is been efficient.
The bold part is where most companies fail. To be fair, it's not their fault. How do you measure the productivity of upper, middle class salaried workers? The number of meetings they attend?

Having worked in finance at many companies, I can tell you that I constantly see companies paying out salaries to people who are contributing very little especially at the top end. In fact I would go as far to say it would be very difficult for someone lower paid to NOT be contributing more than they take (they are easily let go if not). Where as the more you are paid the harder it is and more likely you are not contributing as much as you are being paid.

EDIT: I should clarify. What I am saying is that the farther away from the operations of the business, the harder it is to measure how much you are contributing to productivity (and vice versa). For this reason, higher paid upper middle class salaried workers are generally further away from operations and companies far too easily justify what they pay this level of employee without analysing it in too much detail...
Deal Addict
Jul 11, 2010
2959 posts
139 upvotes
michty6 wrote: The bold part is where most companies fail. To be fair, it's not their fault. How do you measure the productivity of upper, middle class salaried workers? The number of meetings they attend?

Having worked in finance at many companies, I can tell you that I constantly see companies paying out salaries to people who are contributing very little especially at the top end. In fact I would go as far to say it would be very difficult for someone lower paid to NOT be contributing more than they take (they are easily let go if not). Where as the more you are paid the harder it is and more likely you are not contributing as much as you are being paid.

EDIT: I should clarify. What I am saying is that the farther away from the operations of the business, the harder it is to measure how much you are contributing to productivity (and vice versa). For this reason, higher paid upper middle class salaried workers are generally further away from operations and companies far too easily justify what they pay this level of employee without analysing it in too much detail...
As long as they're able to manage their drones to meet the bottom line, they've done their job.
Sr. Member
Apr 6, 2007
506 posts
60 upvotes
michty6 wrote: The bold part is where most companies fail. To be fair, it's not their fault. How do you measure the productivity of upper, middle class salaried workers? The number of meetings they attend?

Having worked in finance at many companies, I can tell you that I constantly see companies paying out salaries to people who are contributing very little especially at the top end. In fact I would go as far to say it would be very difficult for someone lower paid to NOT be contributing more than they take (they are easily let go if not). Where as the more you are paid the harder it is and more likely you are not contributing as much as you are being paid.

EDIT: I should clarify. What I am saying is that the farther away from the operations of the business, the harder it is to measure how much you are contributing to productivity (and vice versa). For this reason, higher paid upper middle class salaried workers are generally further away from operations and companies far too easily justify what they pay this level of employee without analysing it in too much detail...
They've earned a lot of trust at the upper levels. They have more experience and likely didn't get promoted because they were lazy or dishonest.

A man with a bobcat moves more dirt than a man with a shovel. He produces more for his employer's client in less hours. He didn't work as hard, but he's worth much more per hour than the shovel man. He produces 100 times more than shovel man, but only gets paid twice as much. The bobcat consumes some of the profit. The client get some of the additional benefit in lower cost to get the same work done. The employer makes money by leveraging the man's time, the capital for the bobcat and the effort to put it together. The gov't gets more tax. Everyone wins.

Most companies don't fail just by having high talent employees, as long as they are productive enough to justify their compensation.
Member
Nov 25, 2011
425 posts
63 upvotes
Toronto
florch wrote: They've earned a lot of trust at the upper levels. They have more experience and likely didn't get promoted because they were lazy or dishonest.

A man with a bobcat moves more dirt than a man with a shovel. He produces more for his employer's client in less hours. He didn't work as hard, but he's worth much more per hour than the shovel man. He produces 100 times more than shovel man, but only gets paid twice as much. The bobcat consumes some of the profit. The client get some of the additional benefit in lower cost to get the same work done. The employer makes money by leveraging the man's time, the capital for the bobcat and the effort to put it together. The gov't gets more tax. Everyone wins.

Most companies don't fail just by having high talent employees, as long as they are productive enough to justify their compensation.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying every single person at a senior, high paid level in a company is useless and unproductive. It's the sentiment that 'all these guys are super-stars who are so incredibly productive we should pay them completely excessive salaries (and bonuses) and bend over backwards in our tax laws for them - where as lower paid guys are not driving the business forward at all and deserved to be paid very little' that I completely disagree with. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that a CEO being paid 1,000 times more than the lowest paid worker at his company is almost certainly being overpaid. And I would say the cost in excessive unproductive pay at the top end of the scale far outweighs the cost of unproductive workers at the lower end by a huge margin. Personally I believe that most people (not all) being paid >$400k are likely overpaid and should be contributing more to society (in the form of taxes) for the value they taking out of it...
Sr. Member
Apr 6, 2007
506 posts
60 upvotes
michty6 wrote: Just to be clear, I'm not saying every single person at a senior, high paid level in a company is useless and unproductive. It's the sentiment that 'all these guys are super-stars who are so incredibly productive we should pay them completely excessive salaries (and bonuses) and bend over backwards in our tax laws for them - where as lower paid guys are not driving the business forward at all and deserved to be paid very little' that I completely disagree with. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that a CEO being paid 1,000 times more than the lowest paid worker at his company is almost certainly being overpaid. And I would say the cost in excessive unproductive pay at the top end of the scale far outweighs the cost of unproductive workers at the lower end by a huge margin. Personally I believe that most people (not all) being paid >$400k are likely overpaid and should be contributing more to society (in the form of taxes) for the value they taking out of it...
They already have it taken care of, so we can all sleep easy tonight. You pay 0% for the first $25k or whatever. Over $125k or somewhere near that, people pay 46.4%. The latest shot at the middle class takes it to 49.6% at the top end, but I don't think you'll be happy even with that. I think 46.4% is already more than enough. These people are already paying through the nose, the only bending over backwards in the tax laws is to screw them. I can't speak for CEO's - that's an entirely different realm, way out of our context here. I think that Canada/Ontario are great places for average people to live, but taking shots at the upper middle is just vote buying.
Sr. Member
Apr 6, 2007
506 posts
60 upvotes
EugW wrote: Yeah, everyone here should be concerned. That payroll health tax dings most employees, but independent contractors don't pay this.

Technically, it's the employer that pays the EHT, but it's funding that could be used better, including used towards pensions or just as regular pay.
The employer may pay it, but I remember it as a direct payroll hit when it came in, $1k less take home per year.
Member
Nov 25, 2011
425 posts
63 upvotes
Toronto
^ Yeh as I mentioned in this thread I'm not totally convinced about $150k. $250k is probably better. Probably doesn't need to be as steep an increase too, could be phased in.
Member
Nov 25, 2011
425 posts
63 upvotes
Toronto
On the subject of stupid things in the budget, the Ontario Pension Plan is probably up there. Would do waaay more damage that the tax over $150k. Talk about stabbing small business in the back...
Deal Expert
User avatar
Mar 23, 2009
22509 posts
8925 upvotes
Toronto
I agree that a lot of high paid workers are overpaid.

However, I also think that some mid-paid are also overpaid, esp. if we consider some perks, such as the scam which is bankable sick days. I also find that repeated absenteeism is more common in the lower paid and mid-paid positions, but of course that's not universal either.

Note: In my previous job as an employee I had bankable sick days. It was crazy. I took no sick days so when I got a new contract at a different place all of a sudden I got a large payout, which is stupid. I took it of course though. ;)
michty6 wrote: ^ Yeh as I mentioned in this thread I'm not totally convinced about $150k. $250k is probably better. Probably doesn't need to be as steep an increase too, could be phased in.
I also think a mild increase could be reasonable, esp. at a higher pay. However, that wouldn't work for the Wynne budget. Not enough money. They needed a decent sum of money, and promised not to increase taxes in the lower and middle class. However, they added large amounts of spending, so they needed large amounts of new taxes. A good chunk of that is coming off the backs of the upper middle class and upper class, although I guess Wynne as defined all of them as upper class, even at $151000.
Sr. Member
Apr 6, 2007
506 posts
60 upvotes
Hey Michty, when you said taxes are lower than they were in the past, do you mean that someone at $50 or 100k pays less now than they did in the past? Does this account for inflation? IE if we take 2014 dollars back to 1990 or 1975, would you pay a higher percent of taxes in equal dollars today or in the past? I don't honestly know, but my bet is we pay more due to bracket creep with the odd reduction to keep it in control.
Deal Addict
Jan 28, 2014
3925 posts
1036 upvotes
Toronto
michty6 wrote: ^ Yeh as I mentioned in this thread I'm not totally convinced about $150k. $250k is probably better. Probably doesn't need to be as steep an increase too, could be phased in.
Agreed - and thank you for posting this. I strongly believe that $150,000 was too low. People who earn this who work 12 hour days, without overtime pay, with minimal pensions and health benefits are not "wealthy".
Deal Addict
Jul 15, 2009
3611 posts
2990 upvotes
Blanche123 wrote: Agreed - and thank you for posting this. I strongly believe that $150,000 was too low. People who earn this who work 12 hour days, without overtime pay, with minimal pensions and health benefits are not "wealthy".
Or people who support a family of six on 90k take-home.
Member
Nov 25, 2011
425 posts
63 upvotes
Toronto
florch wrote: Hey Michty, when you said taxes are lower than they were in the past, do you mean that someone at $50 or 100k pays less now than they did in the past? Does this account for inflation? IE if we take 2014 dollars back to 1990 or 1975, would you pay a higher percent of taxes in equal dollars today or in the past? I don't honestly know, but my bet is we pay more due to bracket creep with the odd reduction to keep it in control.
I believe the tax brackets are now inflation-indexed but there was a small period when they weren't. So some of the many, many decreases in taxes we've seen in the past decades are slightly offset by tax brackets not keeping up with inflation. But not enough for there not to have been a pretty significant decrease in tax over time, even after adjusting for inflation.

Now when you try to put taxes up at all there is significant backlash and people forget times gone by when taxes were much higher and considerably more progressive (weighted towards upper levels) than they are today. Reagan and Thatcher really drilled trickle down economics into everyone's head and here we are a few decades later with lower tax rates, greater inequality, Governments in deficit and infrastructure spending constantly postponed as there is no money to spend...
Deal Fanatic
Nov 24, 2013
6478 posts
3339 upvotes
Kingston, ON
michty6 wrote: ^ Yeh as I mentioned in this thread I'm not totally convinced about $150k. $250k is probably better. Probably doesn't need to be as steep an increase too, could be phased in.
Well, as proposed it's a 1% (nominal) increase in the $150k-220k bracket. The rest of the change is moving the bracket that currently starts at $514k down to $220k, having the effect of +2% (nominal) on $220k-514k.

From the budget:
These measures would only apply to the top two per cent of Ontario tax filers — those with taxable incomes above $150,000 — and would not apply to 98 per cent of tax filers. About 220,000 people would pay more Ontario PIT in 2014 on their taxable income above $150,000. Of these:

About 115,000 people with taxable income between $150,000 and $220,000 would pay $425 more Ontario PIT, on average, or about 0.2 per cent of the average taxable income of this group; and
The remaining 105,000 people, with taxable income above $220,000, would pay about $5,500 more Ontario PIT, on average, or about one per cent of the average taxable income of this group.
It's the very nature of increasing spending and making other people pay for it, but that is a relatively small number of individuals impacted by the change. The meat of the increase would be for those with $220k or higher individual incomes.
Deal Addict
Nov 24, 2004
4663 posts
1242 upvotes
Toronto
florch wrote: Do you have examples of upper middle class salaried workers in the private sector that don't produce more than they take? I'd like to learn from you.
Sure, how about an example that's been in the news lately. The expansion of Target into Canada is widely accepted to have been a huge blunder, that has reportedly cost the company close to a billion dollars. Presumably there was a highly paid marketing / strategy team that put this plan together, and they still got paid (the CEO took the fall for it this week -- and was handsomely compensated with a multi-million dollar package despite being at the helm while billions of dollars of shareholder value was wiped out -- that's another story).

What bothers me more is the blanket statement that high-income earners got that way because of sacrifice and risk. That is usually true of entrepreneurs, but the degree of risk depends on what kind of financial shape they were in to begin with. Someone who inherits a profitable family business certainly doesn't achieve their income through their own sacrifice and risk. Many or most large companies allow employees to move up the ranks without a lot of sacrifice or risk. Probably many more examples out there as well.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Dec 31, 2011
2715 posts
968 upvotes
Yellowknife
ItemFinder wrote: You guys just need better accountants.
agree
those making that income have appropriate financial counsel and tax shelters already in place

Top