GT: Federal Election

[PsYcNeT]

Shhh no one mention historical tax rates.

It's a wonder anyone was able to live at all back then.

[Looch City]

You're basically saying that we should feel bad for "well-off" people because it's not their fault they live expensive lifestyles and thus can't afford paying the extra tax.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

This is all well and good, but why is someone's income the standard proxy for determining whether they are (or are not) in a "privileged situation" and thus should pay more (or less) in taxes relative to someone else?

Just because you may be in a privileged situation does not mean that someone else who earns the same as you is as well, and thus can also "afford to give more."

If someone is in that income bracket and can't afford to give more (and by more we're talking 4k more over every 100k earned when they already make over 200k...or taking home another 67k vs 71k on that 100k) that isn't a problem with the tax system.

[peter12]

I think the emerging discussion regarding income and privilege is quite interesting. In the modern economy, your intelligence is what marks you more than anything as someone you will earn high wages. The symbolic analysis required of many high wage jobs can only be done by people with the requisite IQs. Now, as intelligence is probably 40-80% inherited, and is only slightly boosted by social environment (household, education), and is probably slightly boosted by other factors (hard work, ambition, aggression), it could be argued that you can't really justify your income solely on the basis of merit, but more-so on the basis of luck. Simple, evolutionary luck. So probably an argument for marginally progressive taxation.

[SHOGUN]

So happy Harper is gone. .

[PepsiFree]

If you're making more than $200K and money is tight, you're bad with your money.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by peter12

I think the emerging discussion regarding income and privilege is quite interesting. In the modern economy, your intelligence is what marks you more than anything as someone you will earn high wages. The symbolic analysis required of many high wage jobs can only be done by people with the requisite IQs. Now, as intelligence is probably 40-80% inherited, and is only slightly boosted by social environment (household, education), and is probably slightly boosted by other factors (hard work, ambition, aggression), it could be argued that you can't really justify your income solely on the basis of merit, but more-so on the basis of luck. Simple, evolutionary luck. So probably an argument for marginally progressive taxation.

I wouldn't even say intelligence per se but intelligence in the "right" areas: Sciences, math, engineering, business. There are other manifestations of "intelligence" that simply isn't rewarded monetarily to nearly the same extent in the world as it stands. It may not even be recognized as intelligence.

And honestly in the world today you often even need to have advanced degrees in those areas to truly advance and move up tax brackets quickly.

[CliffFletcher]

I get a kick out of people complaining about today's income tax rates, especially when they're the sort who wax poetic about the good old days, and moan about how socialist Canada has become.

The top marginal income tax rate in 1964 was 80 per cent.

In 1980 it was 70 per cent.

I'm not advocating a return to those rates. But back in those days people who earned a lot still worked hard and made money.

[Drak]

Originally Posted by ernie

I wouldn't even say intelligence per se but intelligence in the "right" areas: Sciences, math, engineering, business. There are other manifestations of "intelligence" that simply isn't rewarded monetarily to nearly the same extent in the world as it stands. It may not even be recognized as intelligence.

And honestly in the world today you often even need to have advanced degrees in those areas to truly advance and move up tax brackets quickly.

Gardner's 9 types of intelligence.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by ernie

I wouldn't even say intelligence per se but intelligence in the "right" areas: Sciences, math, engineering, business. There are other manifestations of "intelligence" that simply isn't rewarded monetarily to nearly the same extent in the world as it stands. It may not even be recognized as intelligence.

And honestly in the world today you often even need to have advanced degrees in those areas to truly advance and move up tax brackets quickly.

Maybe. I don't have a background in STEM, but I have found myself more than capable of working with STEM graduates in various marketing, planning or communication initiatives. I believe that I am compensated quite well, and that my skill-set is more or less always in demand.

You are right. Education acts as a signalling mechanism for the most part.

Sorry, this post came across as a bit too preening. What I meant was that high income based on high abilities that are probably inherited doesn't excuse you from paying taxes on your income to a degree that an increasingly jobless, and less capable majority can be take care of by a reasonable social safety net.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by GGG

How is income not a good measure?

When you are 2-3 standard deviations above average regardless of where you are on the expenses side of the ledger you are privileged.

Because:

1) Income is not static; and

2) Income has no immediate relation to one's wealth.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

If you're making more than $200K and money is tight, you're bad with your money.

Let's say you just graduated from law school (or med school, your pick) with $250K+ in student loan debt. By virtue of hard work and some luck, you landed a very nice BigLaw (or BigMed, if there is such a thing) job, paying--after bonuses and everything--$201K.

Do you think that money is "tight" the first year that you are working in your chosen profession?

Do you think that, if the money is "tight," it is because you are "bad" with it?

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Because:

1) Income is not static; and

2) Income has no immediate relation to one's wealth.




Let's say you just graduated from law school (or med school, your pick) with $250K+ in student loan debt. By virtue of hard work and some luck, you landed a very nice BigLaw job, paying--after bonuses and everything--$201K.

Do you think that money is "tight" the first year that you are working in your chosen profession?

Do you think that, if the money is "tight," it is because you are "bad" with it?

Yes? What is 4k in increased taxes going to do to you in this worst case scenario you've dreamed up?

You pay your student loan off a month later than you would've otherwise.

If 4k a year is the difference between making payments and not making payments on a 250k loan, then yeah, I would absolutely say you're bad with your money.

[Knut]

So if i have my math right.

Someone earning about $220k will save $670 on the 45-89k tax bracket, but lose an extra $670 with the over 200k tax bracket. So really, those making more than 220k are the ones that will see increased income tax.

Math : 45k x 0.205 = $670
220k x 0.333 = $660

[jammies]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

This is all well and good, but why is someone's income the standard proxy for determining whether they are (or are not) in a "privileged situation" and thus should pay more (or less) in taxes relative to someone else?

If you can suggest another objective standard by which the privileged can be reliably differentiated from the less privileged, please let us know and then wait for the Nobel Prize in Economics which will be undoubtedly delivered to you shortly.

[PsYcNeT]

If mumsy and daddy give me 10,000 every month along with a free car to drive and a house to sleep in, I'm not privileged because I don't actually own anything.

Duh.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Let's say you just graduated from law school (or med school, your pick) with $250K+ in student loan debt. By virtue of hard work and some luck, you landed a very nice BigLaw (or BigMed, if there is such a thing) job, paying--after bonuses and everything--$201K.

Do you think that money is "tight" the first year that you are working in your chosen profession?

Do you think that, if the money is "tight," it is because you are "bad" with it?

No and Yes.

Let's take your situation, and say you wanted to pay back your entire loan in 5 years (aggressive!).

You are looking at about 5100 a month.

You make 210K.
Your monthly NET income in Alberta would be about 9600. Taking student loans off, that leave you with 4500 a month.

If money is tight at 4500 a month, you didn't plan well.

[FlameOn]

The Star is running an interesting article about the last days of the CPC campaign with a good look at everything that went wrong with how they ran. Citing a bunch of leaks from Tory campaign insiders, the article says the CPC knew early on in the election that they expected to be defeated and floated the idea that Harper would announce he would not run serve following the election even if they won.

http://www.thestar.com/news/federal-...-election.html

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by Regorium

You pay your student loan off a month later than you would've otherwise.

Which delays your ability to invest the amount going to your student loans by a month, which also delays your ability to buy a house, and perhaps start a family, and so on. The increase in taxation reduces the funds available that could--and often does---go to other things, which can, in the aggregate, stimulate the economy far more than the additional tax revenue would.

Originally Posted by jammies

If you can suggest another objective standard by which the privileged can be reliably differentiated from the less privileged, please let us know and then wait for the Nobel Prize in Economics which will be undoubtedly delivered to you shortly.

Net worth.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

If money is tight at 4500 a month, you didn't plan well.

Which is, I note, just slightly higher than the under-"privileged" person who earns $40K a year. I guess that person didn't plan well either.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Which is, I note, just slightly higher than the under-"privileged" person who earns $40K a year. I guess that person didn't plan well either.

Slightly higher? Do you mean more than $2000 dollars higher? Because a person making 40K makes about $2300 NET a month.

I wouldn't call nearly double "slight". And we're talking about a 210K salary minus a HUGE student loan payment vs. Someone making 40K and not including any deductions at all.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by peter12

I think the emerging discussion regarding income and privilege is quite interesting. In the modern economy, your intelligence is what marks you more than anything as someone you will earn high wages. The symbolic analysis required of many high wage jobs can only be done by people with the requisite IQs. Now, as intelligence is probably 40-80% inherited, and is only slightly boosted by social environment (household, education), and is probably slightly boosted by other factors (hard work, ambition, aggression), it could be argued that you can't really justify your income solely on the basis of merit, but more-so on the basis of luck. Simple, evolutionary luck. So probably an argument for marginally progressive taxation.

Interesting argument. I was about to write that 'privileged' was the wrong term to use. I think 'privileged' implies a status or standard that you did not necessarily 'earn' through your own doing - so a person who earned a higher than average wage through education and hard work should not be considered privileged. The privileged was Psychnet's example of the trust fund. Like Justin Trudeau kind of privileged.
So maybe your definition is right, not instead, but as well.