Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
This is a fairly tone deaf thing to say... Yes, this would be pretty terrible.
|
Lol talk about tone deaf. You realize the vast majority of people never hit annual incomes that high even before tax, right?
Quote:
Corporate and personal income tax is integrated. A decrease in corporate tax rate would be offset by an equivalent increase in the tax on dividends. Cutting the corporate rate to zero does not "remove" anything from the tax base, per se, it defers the realization of that revenue until the money is paid out to shareholders (or employees or other entities that are subject to tax, ultimately at personal marginal rates).
Yes, this would absolutely have a negative effect on government revenue, especially in the short term, and some of those corporate earnings would be a deferred revenue source for, practically speaking, forever. So you would have to adjust other rates to some extent to compensate. But you seem to think that the revenue that the Receiver General currently gets from corporations just vanishes into the ether when the corporate rate is lowered. That's wrong.
|
Sure, but those dividends only affect people who actually have shares in the company, and assumes that for some reason the capital gains tax has increased with the decrease in corporate taxes. Some people seem to think it's just like a rule of nature that when a Corp makes more money they will expand and increase labour wages but it's not necessarily true. Business only expand when it's profitable, not just because they have the money to do it. And I think by now the idea that it will trickle down to labour wages is laughable at best. They pay employees as little as possible, it's a rule if business basically. What that number is is completely independent of what it actually costs to live, particularly for multinationals. Either way it's an extreme example to counter the other extreme, and as I said neither are really worth discussing.
What it comes down to is are you comfortable with the services you receive in return for your taxes. At those levels, it's likely the government would have more money than they need to provide services they reasonably could or should be providing. Government could reasonably have a hand in at least subsidizing things like dental, expanding health care to include things like physio, insurance, Internet, utilities, etc... For what amounts to very little skin of the back of a few, you can provide essential things to people who can't or barely can attain them otherwise. But you have to get those few people on board, but they can afford those things without even worrying about it. So why can't everyone? Must be dumb or lazy. It couldn't possibly be because their wages are too low and the cost of those things is too high. Talk about tone deaf.