04-16-2007, 06:54 PM
|
#1
|
Often Thinks About Pickles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Okotoks
|
Canadians’ tax bill bigger than all necessities combined
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/f...95845f&k=88411
Quote:
The average Canadian family earned $63,001 in 2006 and paid taxes equalling $28,311, almost 45 per cent of its income, while spending 35.6 per cent of its income on food, clothing and housing.
According to the institute, 45 years ago that same family earned $5,000 and paid $1,675, or 33.5 per cent of its total income, in taxes. In 1961, the average family spent 56.5 per cent of its income on the necessities of life.
|
Quote:
Since 1961, the total tax bill for the average Canadian family has increased 1,590 per cent, according to the think-tank. Meanwhile, the cost of housing has increased 1,019 per cent, the cost of food 487 per cent and the cost of clothing 447 per cent, the Fraser Institute said.
“Over the past 45 years, taxes have become the single largest expenditure in an average Canadian family’s budget, with the total tax bill for a typical family increasing by 1,590 per cent since 1961,” Veldhuis said.
|
Man oh man, this makes me feel angry, helpless, depressed, and confused about what to do. No wonder people find it so difficult to save money today and most households need 2 people working. When will it end?
I can certainly understand why so many people find the USA, and their significantly lower taxes, an attractive place to emigrate to.
|
|
|
04-16-2007, 06:59 PM
|
#2
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Probably stuck driving someone somewhere
|
Not invalidating the report, but keep in mind the slant it is coming from - it is the Fraser Institute.
You could find other institues supporting the opposite. Try http://www.policyalternatives.ca/ and http://www.ccsd.ca/home.htm for such examples.
|
|
|
04-16-2007, 07:31 PM
|
#3
|
Scoring Winger
|
Oops, completely misread that, never mind me...
|
|
|
04-16-2007, 07:45 PM
|
#4
|
#1 Goaltender
|
In 1961 Canadians were being gouged by doctors to the point that they didn't bother going to see a doctor unless they were missing an appendage.
In 1961 my dad would have been dropping out of Grade 10 because he didn't need to go any further to make a living repairing telephones.
What anyone is doing comparing today to 1961 I don't know. Only ones crazy enough to do that might be the Fraser Institute.
We're in the ballpark of most other nations (scroll to bottom):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Canada
|
|
|
04-16-2007, 07:56 PM
|
#5
|
Playboy Mansion Poolboy
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Close enough to make a beer run during a TV timeout
|
Saw this on the news. Talk about skewing the numbers to make a news story.
In 1961 90% of your income went to taxes and nessecities.
In 2007 80.6% of your income goes to taxes and nessecities.
Sounds to me like we're better off now.
|
|
|
04-16-2007, 08:05 PM
|
#6
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Clinching Party
|
A family of four in the States, if they are insured, pony up more than 11 grand a year for health insurance. That's a pretty hefty chunk of change and probably should be taken into account when comparing Canada to the US.
I've also heard that you pay less taxes living in Alberta than you would in any US state, but that was for the very wealthy (hockey players) and I think it came from Kevin Lowe so it may or may not be true.
|
|
|
04-16-2007, 08:08 PM
|
#7
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Calgary, Alberta
|
Its the old case of paying for services by paying taxes, or paying for services with after-tax dollars.
|
|
|
04-16-2007, 08:09 PM
|
#8
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Probably stuck driving someone somewhere
|
|
|
|
04-16-2007, 08:14 PM
|
#9
|
Powerplay Quarterback
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ken0042
Saw this on the news. Talk about skewing the numbers to make a news story.
In 1961 90% of your income went to taxes and nessecities.
In 2007 80.6% of your income goes to taxes and nessecities.
Sounds to me like we're better off now.
|
Yup, that's what I thought as well. Comparitve to other nations with services such as EI, PP's, and public healthcare, we have nothing to complain about.
|
|
|
04-16-2007, 08:21 PM
|
#10
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: May 2004
Location: YSJ (1979-2002) -> YYC (2002-2022) -> YVR (2022-present)
|
The Fraser Institute's methodology is horribly flawed. What they do is simply look at every type of personal tax the government collects and then divide that by the number of taxpayers.
For example, according to the Fraser Institute, the "average" Canadian spends $1746 in tobacco and alcohol taxes each year. This, of course, is ridiculous. According to Statscan, only about 20% of adult Canadians are smokers, so you have 20% of the taxpayers paying nearly 100% of all tobacco taxes. I contend that the "average" Canadian pays damn close to $0 in tobacco taxes, given that 80% of Canadians do not smoke aside from the occasional cigar for poker night or whatever.
Here are some other taxes that the Fraser Instutute contends that the average Canadian pays (value in parenthesis). How much did you pay last year for any of these? I suspect the answer for most Canadians is somewhere close to $0.
Import Duties ($245)
Profits Tax ($2660)
Natural Resource Taxes ($571)
Other Taxes* ($621)
*Whatever that means
All in all, their methodology is biased, flawed, and only exists to present a "worst case" scenario, which grossly overstates how much tax the average Canadian pays. As Devil'sAdvocate pointed out, Canadians are taxed at comparable (or even lower in many cases) levels to other Western democtratic nations.
Last edited by MarchHare; 04-16-2007 at 08:24 PM.
|
|
|
04-17-2007, 01:10 AM
|
#11
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Section 218
|
^ Agreed 100%
PLUS we are one of the few 1st world nations out there running federal (and often provincial) budget surpluses and are activily paying off debt.
That debt WILL be getting a lot more expensive to service at some point and those countries that paid off the most now will reap the benefits then.
Claeren.
|
|
|
04-17-2007, 06:01 AM
|
#12
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rerun
I can certainly understand why so many people find the USA, and their significantly lower taxes, an attractive place to emigrate to.
|
That is a load of crap. It's a myth that has been developed to suck people in and make them believe that they are some how privilaged to be in the situation. The tax burden is pretty well the same thing on both sides of the border. The difference is that Canadians see it disappear out of their paycheck, not with every time they take a breath. The American system is a user system and you get railed every time you turn around. There are certain things that Canadians take for granted (universal health care) that you end up paying for down here that are essentially taxation, and make the two systems equitable. The tax difference between the two countries when all is said and done is negligible. Yup, I only get dinged about 28% of my paycheck down here, but when I have to turn around and pay close to an additional $1000 a month for family heathcare insurance, that makes the two much closer. Yes, healthcare insurance is a choice (much like sleeping and eating) but if you don't have it, you can be bankrupt at the drop of a hat down here should you have an accident or get sick. It is a choice of necessity and is just one example what brings the two systems slamming together where the advantage disappears. If you're choosing to live in the United States for the "tax advantage", you're living down here for all the wrong reasons.
|
|
|
04-17-2007, 06:36 AM
|
#14
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Virginia
|
When I was single, I was filling out NC/US Federal tax returns and Alberta/Cdn Federal tax returns. My Alberta/Canada taxes were a few thousand lower.
I think in the US, we benefit more if we are a single income 2 kids type of family. I'm in a 2 income/1 kid situation, and taxes are still comparable to what I was when single.
There are some crazy other taxes here too. For instance, I have to pay $3200/year for personal property taxes on our 2 cars.
|
|
|
04-17-2007, 08:30 AM
|
#15
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald
Yup, I only get dinged about 28% of my paycheck down here, but when I have to turn around and pay close to an additional $1000 a month for family heathcare insurance, that makes the two much closer.
|
But when you need to go to the hospital, do you end up having to wait 5 hours in Emergency? Probably not, I recon.
|
|
|
04-17-2007, 08:38 AM
|
#16
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Probably stuck driving someone somewhere
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironhorse
But when you need to go to the hospital, do you end up having to wait 5 hours in Emergency? Probably not, I recon.
|
Well, from this list you are going to wait anywhere from 2 - 5 hours or so. So....I would probably recon, I guess  .
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...ts_x.htm#table
|
|
|
04-17-2007, 09:09 AM
|
#17
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjinaz
Really Lanny?
I pay 90 a month for a family of 4 on a PPO plan, granted my employer is unusual in that it is a 90/10 split but i have never paid over $330. We recently got bought out by a larger company with a 70/30 split and my monthy cost will go up to $270 but they are giving me a raise to cover the difference. Dental is another $70 or so but I have never reached near 1k.
When I worked for the state of AZ the benefits were comparible to what I have now. I figured your employer would have excellent benefits.
|
Is your employer hiring??? I got a raise last year, and the increase in our helath "benefits" ate it all up and then some. That was just MY contribution! The benefits are good, but you get what you pay for. I could be on a 70/30 split as well, and probably pay about the same as you do, but I prefer to have that safety net and I'm willing to pay for it.
I'm not commenting about what I have to pay for as I see value there, I'm commenting about the Canadians thinking they are getting railed up there, and we roll around in cash at nights because we don't get taxed as hard. Taxation is just conducted in a completely different manner down here. We still get hit as hard, just in different ways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedHot25
|
You mean that you can't just walk into a hospital in the United States and get that quadruple by-pass you've wanting? You mean having 10 times the population and the only twice as any hospitals is going to lead to even longer wait times???
One of our guys was having chest pains a few months back and experiencing numbness in his left side. We were pretty scared for him so we took him to one of the local hospitals, that just happens to specialize in heart procedures. Our guys sat there, in the waiting room for over four hours before he could get looked at. That was with a suspected heart attack at a cardiac care facility. He ended up getting admitted for over night observation. When all was said and done, it was a $11K overnight stay for what they suspect was indigestion. That was without an ambulance ride too.
It's been a real eye-opener down here. Yeah, there are advantages (the weather is great!) but the same problems that plague Canada exist down here, and they are amplified by at least a factor of 10 because of population. I love it down here, but there are a lot of things that I wish the United States would adopt from Canada, for the good of the country. We could both do a lot better if we took the best of each country and used that to our advantage.
Last edited by Lanny_MacDonald; 04-17-2007 at 09:20 AM.
|
|
|
04-17-2007, 03:58 PM
|
#18
|
#1 Goaltender
|
I will tell what....lets pay off our federal debt....and everyones Taxes will go down considerably.
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:21 AM.
|
|