GT: Federal Election

[Locke]

Originally Posted by jammies

No, it wouldn't. It's a very bad idea. Perhaps the least sensible taxation scheme other than the "shoot the rich and take their stuff" system the early Soviets tried out.

Oh....so...thats not happening then?

Now I have to return this gun and maps to Flames players houses....

Anyone want maps to Flames players houses?? Anyone?

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Locke

Oh....so...thats not happening then?

I *told* you we had to spread misinformation or other people would get the same idea before Dear Leader Kim-Il Trudeau officially gave his endorsement. You said you were paying attention and not just playing Super Mario World like I kept saying I could hear in the background!

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by jammies

I *told* you we had to spread misinformation or other people would get the same idea before Dear Leader Kim-Il Trudeau officially gave his endorsement. You said you were paying attention and not just playing Super Mario World like I kept saying I could hear in the background!

See, I think this is your mistake. He was playing Mario Maker in a Super Mario World themed level, so you just asked the wrong question.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Yes, slightly higher.



Actually, my hypo involved a $201K salary.

I thought that your first reference to $210K was just a typo, but if you really want to use that number, so be it.

Regardless, as evidenced by what I consider to be "slightly higher," aren't most debates and discussions regarding tax matters and what is fair or appropriate all relative to one's amount of current income or wealth?

Yes, but I'd rather have 1 or 2% of folks spending less to stimulate the economy and 98% spending more. Fact is, that top 1-2% would spend it on less stimulating things, like savings and investments. Direct consumption will always trump that

[jammies]

Originally Posted by peter12

I didn't read anything that he said, but he knows we have capital gains and estate taxes here, right?

I'm not sure what he knows or doesn't, but I am sure that taxing income based on the obvious metric of what people make in income isn't as crazy as he believes.

[Jude]

Originally Posted by jammies

I'm not sure what he knows or doesn't, but I am sure that taxing income based on the obvious metric of what people make in income isn't as crazy as he believes.

He also used an income of $201k in his example which is such an abritrary number unless he doesn't know how tax brackets work.

[peter12]

I would like to make $201K. It's not that arbitrary.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Locke

Oh....so...thats not happening then?

Consider yourself lucky, you'd be first in line, Nikolai.

That's right, we all remember you flaunting your cash and fine art purchases in the PIMKing thread.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Consider yourself lucky, you'd be first in line, Nikolai.

That's right, we all remember you flaunting your cash and fine art purchases in the PIMKing thread.

Yes but all that means is that I no longer have any cash PIMKing has it all!

Granted he probably also has more weapons than I do.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by jammies

So your solution is for people to avoid taxes by not investing in anything.

A net worth tax would be coupled with a consumption tax.

Thus, if an individual earns, say, $100K and invests none of it, surely some of the earnings would be spent and would be subject to the consumption tax.

Originally Posted by jammies

I wonder why no one has thought of it before.

I suspect that the idea of a net worth taxation has been thought of before.

Originally Posted by jammies

Not to mention, say you're Donald Trump. You owe more than you own, but you owe so much the banks can't let you go bankrupt.

Which brings up a decent point regarding taxation:

Many on the "left" tend to view taxation as a means to equalize inequality, and to make sure that the "rich" pay their "fair share."

Given that income does not necessarily equate to being "rich," if the goal is truly to tax the "rich," shouldn't you first figure out who the "rich" really are?

Originally Posted by jammies

Or, say you are elderly and your net worth is tied up in your home. Sure, you "theoretically" have half a million dollars, but your pension, under the HockeyIlliterate fair taxation scheme, is taxed heavily enough that you end up selling your home because you are eating cat food and week-old bread scavenged from behind the local Mac's.

I do not contemplate abolishing the existing property tax scheme. As such, a net worth tax could exempt the value of one's primary residence from net worth calculation (whether due to fairness, a desire to avoid double taxation, or whatever).

Originally Posted by jammies

I think you haven't really thought this through. At all.

I'm not convinced that you have either, but I understand that it is easier to criticize than it is to create.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by peter12

I didn't read anything that he said, but he knows we have capital gains and estate taxes here, right?

I'm somewhat familiar with the Canadian capital gains tax, seeing as how I recently paid a low six-figure amount to the CRA due to a deemed disposition of capital assets.

[nik-]

Humblebrag spotted

[burn_this_city]

With consumption tax factored in, paying 45-65% of your income in taxes is a bit obscene. Apparently the top 20% of income earners pay 70% of the taxes in this country. I wonder at what point does high taxation become a drag on the overall economy.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

I'm somewhat familiar with the Canadian capital gains tax, seeing as how I recently paid a low six-figure amount to the CRA due to a deemed disposition of capital assets.

Darn. Must be tough.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

You guys understand what a "deemed disposition" is... right? What he's saying is not a good thing. He had to come up with $100,000 from somewhere despite not actually having received any money for his property. This causes serious problems for people, and not just mega rich people.

[Fire]

Canada has 22 vacant senate seats at the moment. Does anyone know if Harper can still fill those seats with his picks or is it now too late?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

You guys understand what a "deemed disposition" is... right? What he's saying is not a good thing. He had to come up with $100,000 from somewhere despite not actually having received any money for his property. This causes serious problems for people, and not just mega rich people.

I'm assuming as a result of some kind of inheritance?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Many on the "left" tend to view taxation as a means to equalize inequality, and to make sure that the "rich" pay their "fair share."

Strawman. Only a tiny fraction of government spending is in the form of direct transfers. The great bulk is delivering services that the citizens have decided are best delivered publicly - that is education, roads and infrastructure, police and courts, emergency services, and health care.

So once we've decided that public school should be accessible to all children regardless of parental income, and that we need roads and airports and water treatment plants and police, and that health care should not cost out of pocket and should be available to all Canadians, we're left the question of how we distribute the cost of these services.

Progressive taxation is the model that virtually every developed state in the world uses. Weigh the scales too heavily towards the poor and they cannot pay for basic needs, and pose a burden on the rest of society through the poverty, crime, and gradual corrosion of civil society and mutual trust. Weigh the scales too heavily towards the wealthy and they take their skills and money elsewhere.

But again, every civilized country in the world has recognized that the wealthy can afford to pay a greater share, taking into account that they benefit more than anyone from a secure, broadly prosperous society where they don't have to live in walled compounds with armed guards.

Lastly, progressive taxation has not stopped the skilled and ambitious from capturing a greater and greater share of the economic pie in the last 40 years. The rich today are doing far better relative to the poor and middle class than they were 40 years ago.

[PsYcNeT]

But a guy who became famous for being a giant money-driven jackass on the TV keeps telling me via the Facebook that higher taxes for the rich are bad.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I'm assuming as a result of some kind of inheritance?

It was due to leaving Canada.