Alberta PST discussion

[Tinordi]

Disagree with me and you're just not hard working. Nice argument.

[Rerun]

I put a PST in the same category as the flat 10% provincial income tax. Both are flat taxes. Is it fair that everyone pay the same tax no matter what their income? Perhaps it is. Is it right? I don't think it is.

Forget about instituting a PST. Change the flat 10% provincial income tax to a graduated tax rate. Those who least can afford to be taxed won't, and those who can will pay more, thus subsidizing those who can't.

For example, its not right that a family of four with a family income of say $50,000 should have to pay a PST on a new vehicle, which in this day and age is pretty well a necessity... if their old one is on its last legs. ... in comparison to another family of four with an income of $200,000 paying the same tax on the same vehicle.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Disagree with me and you're just not hard working. Nice argument.

Well, we both know that that's not EXACTLY what he said and you're twisting his words somewhat... but go ahead, your version certainly makes for a better one line drive by.

[nfotiu]

While I am not generally a proponent of highly progressive taxes in general, it seem that Alberta may be the least progressive region in North America in that regard. I think something is wrong when a family of 4 making $60,000 a year in Alberta pays more taxes than similar families in most other provinces and states, yet a hockey player making $8 million per year pays less tax in Alberta than any other place.

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Well, we both know that that's not EXACTLY what he said and you're twisting his words somewhat... but go ahead, your version certainly makes for a better one line drive by.

Actually his post is contradictory and assumes nobody on cp has a job. He says nobody cares what a bunch of hockey fans on cp think but posts anyway. The one line drive by is fair.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

And trust me, I have a job in Oil and Gas, but I have a broader view of what has made this province successful.

What we need is a government with accountability and clearly one that has been reigning for more than 40 years and counting has not.

If I were layoff, I re-do my budget and cut my spendings. But the PC government's proposed solution when facing reduced revenue is to tax people more. Daniel Smith said we did have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.

Did people suffer during the Klein style cut years? Kids went to schools and people drove on highways just the same as they do now.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by darklord700

Did people suffer during the Klein style cut years? Kids went to schools and people drove on highways just the same as they do now.

Said the people not impacted by his cuts.


Healthcare got massacred by Klein and I can tell you thousands of people's lives in care were made much much worse by the cuts, and yes, they did suffer.

[simmonjam1]

Not trying to butt heads with anyone but why do a lot of you think a flat income tax is unfair? Someone posted an example of 10% of $40,000 and 10% of $200,000 as not being right. One pays $4,000 in income tax the other $20,000. By my logic that seems fair.

I would be in favour of a 10% HST.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by simmonjam1

Not trying to butt heads with anyone but why do a lot of you think a flat income tax is unfair? Someone posted an example of 10% of $40,000 and 10% of $200,000 as not being right. One pays $4,000 in income tax the other $20,000. By my logic that seems fair.

I would be in favour of a 10% HST.

I tried that argument with my wife once. I make $70,000 per year, and she makes $30,000 per year. Therefore it seemed fair to me that I would pay 70% of all the bills and she pays 30% of all the bills.

At the end of the year I had a ton of money left over in my bank account and drove a nice car and she was virtually broke and drove a beater. It didn't seem so fair after all.

[polak]

Originally Posted by simmonjam1

Not trying to butt heads with anyone but why do a lot of you think a flat income tax is unfair? Someone posted an example of 10% of $40,000 and 10% of $200,000 as not being right. One pays $4,000 in income tax the other $20,000. By my logic that seems fair.

I would be in favour of a 10% HST.

Flip it over.

90% of 200,000 is 180,000. 90% of 40,000 is 36,000.

I know it might seem like a pointless exercise but maybe now you can you see how taking 10% of someones salary when they're making 40,000 hurts them much more than taking 10% of somoeones salary that makes 200,000.

Now, if you make it 20% for the person making $200,000 and keep it at 10% for the person making $40,000, then the person making $200K still has $160000 and still living a great life, where as the person making $40K still has $36000 to get by. That's the idea.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by simmonjam1

Not trying to butt heads with anyone but why do a lot of you think a flat income tax is unfair? Someone posted an example of 10% of $40,000 and 10% of $200,000 as not being right. One pays $4,000 in income tax the other $20,000. By my logic that seems fair.



I would be in favour of a 10% HST.

It's not actually a question of fairness. Paying the same percentage is actually fair. It's about building a better society and those who are fortunate give proportionally more.

[kevman]

Can we not ignore the personal exemption when we talk about tax rates? It makes a huge difference in the overall picture.

Myself I'd like to see a flat tax rate with no deductions. Deductions seem to only benefit those that can afford the accountants to find them. Keep it flat. Get rid of the deductions. Increase the personal exemption limit. Raise the tax rate to satisfy the revenue requirements accordingly. Simple and fair.

[polak]

Edit: What would you set the exemptions at? It'd have to be quite high for me to agree with a flat tax.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by kevman

Can we not ignore the personal exemption when we talk about tax rates? It makes a huge difference in the overall picture.

Myself I'd like to see a flat tax rate with no deductions. Deductions seem to only benefit those that can afford the accountants to find them. Keep it flat. Get rid of the deductions. Increase the personal exemption limit. Raise the tax rate to satisfy the revenue requirements accordingly. Simple and fair.

Thats the glory of a consumption tax pure and simple. No paperwork, no deductions, no messing around to save pieces of paper for the better part of a decade, and relatively stable and secure funding for the government.

[kevman]

Originally Posted by polak

Edit: What would you set the exemptions at? It'd have to be quite high for me to agree with a flat tax.

Just for fun, pretend the flat tax was 15% and the personal exemption was $50k. Compared to the "old" system of a 10% flat tax and a $20k exemption:

Earnings Old Tax Percent New Tax Perecent
($k)--------($k)----(%)-----($k)------(%)----
20k---------0-------0--------0---------0
30--------- 1------- 3.3---- 0---------- 0
40--------- 2------- 5------ 0---------- 0
50--------- 3------- 6------ 0---------- 0
60--------- 4------ 6.6---- 1.5-------- 2.5
70--------- 5------- 7.1---- 3---------- 4.3
80--------- 6------- 7.5---- 4.5 --------5.6
90--------- 7------ 7.8------ 6 ---------6.7
100 --------8------- 8------- 7.5------- 7.5
125-------- 10.5---- 8.4 -----11.25----- 9
150 -------13------- 8.7------ 15 -------10
200 -------18 -------9---------22.5---- 11.25
500 -------48------- 9.6-------67.5 ------13.5
1000------98 -------9.8 -------142.5 ----14.25

In other words anyone making under $50k/year (approximately the median income) pays no tax. Anyone making under $100k/year is paying less tax than they currently do. Someone making $150k/year is only paying $2k or 1.3% higher taxes.

No idea what the tax curve actually looks like, this was just for fun. Some combination of a lower exemption and a higher tax rate may be required to get enough revenue....

Originally Posted by Slava

Thats the glory of a consumption tax pure and simple. No paperwork, no deductions, no messing around to save pieces of paper for the better part of a decade, and relatively stable and secure funding for the government.

Agreed. I'd just like to see tax reform at the same time. Federally as well. Deductions are nothing more than bribes at election time. You've got kids? Here's $500 each. You drive an electric car? Here's $1,000. You're going to university? We'll buy your books. You're in the trades? We'll buy your tools.

[CliffFletcher]

If Alberta adopted the tax regime of the next lowest-taxed province - Saskatchewan - that would pretty much eliminate the deficit even at $50 oil. So still lowest-taxed province in Canada, just tied with one other province.

Too many people in this province are just here to make a buck for 2 or 10 or 15 years, and the move back to Manitoba or Nova Scotia. Unlike a lot of places in the world, you can't count on Alberta voters to have a shared interest in the future.

Lougheed warned us about where we were heading. He got it. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...mier-1.1049170

I don't expect oil executives in this province to care that in 20 years Calgary will be Winnipeg with mountains nearby. They'll be long gone to Arizona or Vancouver Island. But for too many Albertans today the horizon of the future ends at about 24 months, and the only thing that matters is the number on their paycheque.

[CaptainYooh]

Taxes should not be punitive. Consumption tax is punitive.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Julio

Interesting statement from you...definitely more nuanced than I might have thought from some of your other posts.
But one thing that I disagree complete with you is that most Albertans reject a tax and spend socialist paradise...they want that, and they don't want to pay for it, believing instead that 'the oil' should pay for it, and leave their taxes low while they get as good if not better services than can be found in the rest of the country because they are in Alberta.

I actually agree with you 100% on this, it's been criminal the way the PC's have used resource revenues; pretending to be fiscally conservative via low taxes whilst spending more than any liberal party's wildest dreams.

IMO, the last election should have been more about choosing between the liberal party who believed in raising taxes to support current spending or the wildrose who wanted to cut spending to match revenues, but instead we got the same old PC's because of a few stupid comments from social dinosaur.

Hopefully we will see a real choice for Albertans in the next election instead of stealing wealth from future citizens to fund our current desires.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Disagree with me and you're just not hard working. Nice argument.

I have an idea. Instead of a PST, we could just give him a "condescending jerk" tax.

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Taxes should not be punitive. Consumption tax is punitive.

As opposed to, say, income tax? Anyways, the best taxes ARE punitive - they punish "bad" behaviour (e.g. cigarette tax).

[Slava]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Taxes should not be punitive. Consumption tax is punitive.

How are they punitive?