The bubble finally deflating. not bursting.............

[Slava]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

More robust inheritance taxes are probably necessary to slow Canada's acceleration into a class society. More and more of a person's station in life in determined by the advantages and money they inherit from their parents. In another 20 years, Canada will be a lot more like the U.S.

Of course it's politically untenable, so it won't happen.

I don't see the logic here. We should enact an inheritance/estate tax to prevent becoming the US...Although they have had such a tax for basically two hundred years in one form or another?

We already pay enough tax and frankly there are a chunk of these that are already double dipping by the governments. I don't think we need another egregious example of that idea.

[Erick Estrada]

I'm sorry but my dad moved to this country with nothing, busted his ass to amass his fortune and he paid every penny of tax he owed to the government. He was also very frugal and didn't play the "keep up with the Joneses" game which his highly prevalent in this country. Why should his money be double taxed because he was better with his money than most people?

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I'm sorry but my dad moved to this country with nothing, busted his ass to amass his fortune and he paid every penny of tax he owed to the government. He was also very frugal and didn't play the "keep up with the Joneses" game which his highly prevalent in this country. Why should his money be double taxed because he was better with his money than most people?

Because I don't have as much as you and want your stuff ? Isn't that what the argument basically boils down too?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I'm sorry but my dad moved to this country with nothing, busted his ass to amass his fortune and he paid every penny of tax he owed to the government. He was also very frugal and didn't play the "keep up with the Joneses" game which his highly prevalent in this country. Why should his money be double taxed because he was better with his money than most people?

That isn't the question. The question is how much you should benefit from the hard work of your father once you're an adult. And how much the prospects of a child of a single mother who works at Winner's should be narrowed because of the circumstances of his birth. Should one have a big leg-up buying his own house, while the other can never scrape together a down-payment?

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Because I don't have as much as you and want your stuff ? Isn't that what the argument basically boils down too?

Nope. We're rapidly moving towards a society where around 20 per cent of people will live in households with high incomes and good jobs, 30-40 per cent will have precarious jobs, mostly in the service industry, and the rest won't have the skills to find regular work.

You can be in that top 20 per cent yourself and still believe the social cohesion and general security and prosperity of your fellow-citizens affects your own happiness. When doctors and bankers are all the children and grandchildren of doctors and bankers, and grocery store clerks and drywallers are all the children and grandchildren of grocery store clerks and drywallers, social cohesion breaks down. When people end up going to school, marrying, and having children only with people of similar backgrounds, we develop a very narrow sense of 'we'. Civility goes down. Crime, fraud, and and the destruction of public property goes up. The rich, afraid to leave their affluent bubbles, come to live in enclaves just as restrictive as the poor.

The story of Estrada's father becomes less likely when only the children of the affluent are raised in the right neighbourhoods that have the good schools that secure the high-paying jobs that are the only way of getting ahead. And really, what's the difference between houses being priced out of the reach of average Canadians because of rich foreigners, and being priced out of the reach of average Canadians because of rich Canadians?

Edit: And just to be clear, I'm talking about using inheritance taxes to pay for our public health care, education, and pension systems, whose long-term viability is in doubt.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

That isn't the question. The question is how much you should benefit from the hard work of your father once you're an adult. And how much the prospects of a child of a single mother who works at Winner's should be narrowed because of the circumstances of his birth. Should one have a big leg-up buying his own house, while the other can never scrape together a down-payment?



Nope. We're rapidly moving towards a society where around 20 per cent of people will live in households with high incomes and good jobs, 30-40 per cent will have precarious jobs, mostly in the service industry, and the rest won't have the skills to find regular work.

You can be in that top 20 per cent yourself and still believe the social cohesion and general security and prosperity of your fellow-citizens affects your own happiness. When doctors and bankers are all the children and grandchildren of doctors and bankers, and grocery store clerks and drywallers are all the children and grandchildren of grocery store clerks and drywallers, social cohesion breaks down. When people end up going to school, marrying, and having children only with people of similar backgrounds, we develop a very narrow sense of 'we'. Civility goes down. Crime, fraud, and and the destruction of public property goes up. The rich, afraid to leave their affluent bubbles, come to live in enclaves just as restrictive as the poor.

The story of Estrada's father becomes less likely when only the children of the affluent are raised in the right neighbourhoods that have the good schools that secure the high-paying jobs that are the only way of getting ahead. And really, what's the difference between houses being priced out of the reach of average Canadians because of rich foreigners, and being priced out of the reach of average Canadians because of rich Canadians?

Edit: And just to be clear, I'm talking about using inheritance taxes to pay for our public health care, education, and pension systems, whose long-term viability is in doubt.

You do raise very good points, and I have thought a lot about how part of the problem in the US has been the widening of classes and furthering erosion of the inability of class mobility.

If your last edit there was guaranteed and every last red cent went towards those types of programs or funds I'm sure people would be a lot more open to it, but call me skeptical the government would ensure that's the case.

What about a system that wasn't all or none. When you die you keep half your inheritance and the other half gets taxed towards those types of programs, or keep the tax in general to a relatively low level. I dunno. It is still double dipping though.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

That isn't the question. The question is how much you should benefit from the hard work of your father once you're an adult. And how much the prospects of a child of a single mother who works at Winner's should be narrowed because of the circumstances of his birth. Should one have a big leg-up buying his own house, while the other can never scrape together a down-payment?



Nope. We're rapidly moving towards a society where around 20 per cent of people will live in households with high incomes and good jobs, 30-40 per cent will have precarious jobs, mostly in the service industry, and the rest won't have the skills to find regular work.

You can be in that top 20 per cent yourself and still believe the social cohesion and general security and prosperity of your fellow-citizens affects your own happiness. When doctors and bankers are all the children and grandchildren of doctors and bankers, and grocery store clerks and drywallers are all the children and grandchildren of grocery store clerks and drywallers, social cohesion breaks down. When people end up going to school, marrying, and having children only with people of similar backgrounds, we develop a very narrow sense of 'we'. Civility goes down. Crime, fraud, and and the destruction of public property goes up. The rich, afraid to leave their affluent bubbles, come to live in enclaves just as restrictive as the poor.

The story of Estrada's father becomes less likely when only the children of the affluent are raised in the right neighbourhoods that have the good schools that secure the high-paying jobs that are the only way of getting ahead. And really, what's the difference between houses being priced out of the reach of average Canadians because of rich foreigners, and being priced out of the reach of average Canadians because of rich Canadians?

Edit: And just to be clear, I'm talking about using inheritance taxes to pay for our public health care, education, and pension systems, whose long-term viability is in doubt.

The problem is your are lumping 2 problems, and suggesting they can be solved by double dipping into the people - by your own admission - that are best positioned to utilize the wealth

Why won't the rest have the skills to find regular work? If the answer is that training/schooling is too expensive, then i agree 100% we need to have a better system in place to get people the education they need.

Do we need to ensure that the average Canadian can afford housing? Absolutely. (So tax housing??? - Not sure of the solution to this issue!)

The actual biggest issues IMO are the access to funding for job creation/entrepreneurs and the education about money from a young age.

Jobs are disappearing because of technology. The bigger issue that this new generation isn't creating jobs.

http://www.inc.com/magazine/201505/l...n-decline.html

(Lots of good articles on this issue)

So is taking money from people positioned to create new jobs - the people who had successful parents, better education, etc, and giving to the government, really going to solve any of these issue?


You bring in the health care system and pension and that the inheritance tax should be used for these. So how does this help employ the 40% of people in your example who need jobs? Unless you believe the government actually 'creates' jobs....

Estrada's example above is becoming less common because people are not able to just start a business and earn. And even if they do, it is so difficult to stay afloat with the government pinching them for every penny to support the social programs and their own 'job creation'

This boils down to another argument that people who earn need to support - to an ever increasing degree - those that don't. Not in teaching or creating job opportunites, but in the social services. Giving more $$ to the government and hoping they can solve the problem.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I do wonder if it's time to start introducing some form of inheritance tax in this country. If we want to say that capitalism is meritocratic system, then let's make it truly meritocratic.

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Wow. Disagree. That would be double dipping for sure by the old government.

Originally Posted by Slava

I don't see the logic here. We should enact an inheritance/estate tax to prevent becoming the US...Although they have had such a tax for basically two hundred years in one form or another?

We already pay enough tax and frankly there are a chunk of these that are already double dipping by the governments. I don't think we need another egregious example of that idea.

See, I look at this from both sides, yes it would be double-dipping, no argument there, but at the same time the group of people who are dying right now (Boomers) perpetrated one of the most egregious misappropriations of wealth and resources in centuries and there is no mechanism in place to rectify that.

What you see as a result of that is a huge disparity of wealth and resources and ultimately a steady decline in upwards mobility and even a steady increase downwards mobility.

Whenever a system sways too far to one side or the other a correction is required and you cant keep going back to the 'middle-class well' because eventually that well is going to either run dry or simply dig their heels in and refuse.

The effort and sacrifices made by the 'well my dad worked hard and saved and was frugal' is not the issue, its about keeping the system solvent. There are vast sums of wealth in untouchable places, there needs to be a mechanism to get that wealth back into the general pool.

Further to which, people within that demographic had many methods of tax savings and deferrals and likely over the course of their lives paid a significantly lower percentage of tax than others without the means or access to these methods.

A 'deferral' by definition indicates that at some point the Bill is going to come Due, but with the lack of an Estate Tax it does in effect become a deferral in perpetuity.

Besides, are not 'Tax the Rich' and 'wealth re-distrubtion' the new, chic and acceptable Mantras?

Its not sexy and its veritable Political Suicide, but it may eventually end up as the only viable alternative.

I'm not a proponent of an Estate Tax, but when I look at the way the system is trending it does seem like one the best tools with which to effect a correction.

I'll add, anecdotally though, there could be an additional social benefit to this as well and that is reducing the number of trust fund kids.

Not having to work, not having to struggle and a lack of desperation tends to create soft idiots which I think we see our society trending towards.

Its a very common feeling, "I'll struggle harder so my kids wont have to!"

Your kids should have to.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

More robust inheritance taxes are probably necessary to slow Canada's acceleration into a class society. More and more of a person's station in life in determined by the advantages and money they inherit from their parents. In another 20 years, Canada will be a lot more like the U.S.

Of course it's politically untenable, so it won't happen.

A modern day landed gentry.

Love the knee jerk anti tax reaction that follows in this thread.

Double dipping is my favorite. It's an essentially assinine criticism. The earnings that were used to pay your income tax were also taxed.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

It's insane what's happened in Toronto and Vancouver and if the real estate board of Toronto is correct in saying that only a small minority of property buyers are foreign then a tax on them shouldn't make a difference.

If it shouldn't make a difference, why implement the tax?
Shouldn't it have some purpose?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Locke

See, I look at this from both sides, yes it would be double-dipping, no argument there, but at the same time the group of people who are dying right now (Boomers) perpetrated one of the most egregious misappropriations of wealth and resources in centuries and there is no mechanism in place to rectify that.

What you see as a result of that is a huge disparity of wealth and resources and ultimately a steady decline in upwards mobility and even a steady increase downwards mobility.

Whenever a system sways too far to one side or the other a correction is required and you cant keep going back to the 'middle-class well' because eventually that well is going to either run dry or simply dig their heels in and refuse.

The effort and sacrifices made by the 'well my dad worked hard and saved and was frugal' is not the issue, its about keeping the system solvent. There are vast sums of wealth in untouchable places, there needs to be a mechanism to get that wealth back into the general pool.

Further to which, people within that demographic had many methods of tax savings and deferrals and likely over the course of their lives paid a significantly lower percentage of tax than others without the means or access to these methods.

A 'deferral' by definition indicates that at some point the Bill is going to come Due, but with the lack of an Estate Tax it does in effect become a deferral in perpetuity.

Besides, are not 'Tax the Rich' and 'wealth re-distrubtion' the new, chic and acceptable Mantras?

Its not sexy and its veritable Political Suicide, but it may eventually end up as the only viable alternative.

I'm not a proponent of an Estate Tax, but when I look at the way the system is trending it does seem like one the best tools with which to effect a correction.

I'll add, anecdotally though, there could be an additional social benefit to this as well and that is reducing the number of trust fund kids.

Not having to work, not having to struggle and a lack of desperation tends to create soft idiots which I think we see our society trending towards.

Its a very common feeling, "I'll struggle harder so my kids wont have to!"

Your kids should have to.

I don't completely disagree, and to be clear I am in line for zero dollars from a personal perspective. But there are taxes on assets already (house, RRSPs and savings, etc.) and this seems fine. There are strategies to get around these things or fund them pre-emptively, and that is also fine.

I guess I'm getting more and more in line with the "dark side" that says if we can't fund everything then where should we begin cutting back? There are many, many places where the government is involved and just shouldn't be. So if you can't meet your obligations to your constituents (healthcare, education and basic services like that) then maybe start by eliminating areas like corporate welfare, advertising, and pet projects?

I also find it disheartening that anytime there is a problem we want to solve the only solution that gains traction seems to be taxes. Too much junk food, too much energy use, wrong lightbulbs, people texting and driving, and the list goes on. And the only way we can address these issues is by giving the government more money? It's bizarre that with so many smart people we can't seem to find any other way.

I look to the campaign by Alberta Health to increase the number of organ donors, and they decided an awareness campaign was the best way. The answer is so simple though; make it the default selection that your organs are going to be donated. If you have an objection and don't want to, then you complete the card. Quick, easy and basically free of cost. Instead its advertising and spending money to get much lesser results.

tldr; we pay enough tax and the government should look for places to cut if they can't fund things.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

A modern day landed gentry.

Love the knee jerk anti tax reaction that follows in this thread.

Double dipping is my favorite. It's an essentially assinine criticism. The earnings that were used to pay your income tax were also taxed.

It's not asinine though, its what is happening. You pay tax, save money and for no real reason the government taxes it again. What justification is there for that?

[Tinordi]

"We already pay enough in tax..."

Says who? By what measure? Pretty rich for an Albertan with a giant provincial deficit to make such a clearly delusional statement. Sure costs should be cut but any sober assessment must conclude that more revenues are needed.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

A modern day landed gentry.

Love the knee jerk anti tax reaction that follows in this thread.

Double dipping is my favorite. It's an essentially assinine criticism. The earnings that were used to pay your income tax were also taxed.

So do you believe all wealth and all money ultimately is that of the state, or do you believe individuals have a right to ownership and personal property?

How many times can money be taxed? What's the right or wrong amount? No limits? Why not just sign up for communism (seriously)? It's a philosophical question, it isn't "asinine". The only "asinine" thing here is your approach to discussion on this message board.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Slava

It's not asinine though, its what is happening. You pay tax, save money and for no real reason the government taxes it again. What justification is there for that?

Because tax is used as a mechanism to achieve policy objectives. Such as ensuring there isn't a permanent under class in your society.

Frankly you've created your own little paradigm that income shouldn't be taxed twice for no other reason than to support your previously held position. Taxes are doubled up all the time. It's not some state of nature by which income can only be taxed once.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

So do you believe all wealth and all money ultimately is that of the state, or do you believe individuals have a right to ownership and personal property?

How many times can money be taxed? What's the right or wrong amount? No limits? Why not just sign up for communism (seriously)? It's a philosophical question, it isn't "asinine". The only "asinine" thing here is your approach to discussion on this message board.

God what a rhetorical extreme. I support estate taxes to mitigate possibly significant generational and class equity issues (along with all the negative second order effects like lower productivity) and now it's back to sipping cafe with Lenin in Vienna.

Grow up and get a real argument.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

God what a rhetorical extreme. I support estate taxes to mitigate possibly significant generational and class equity issues (along with all the negative second order effects like lower productivity) and now it's back to sipping cafe with Lenin in Vienna.

Grow up and get a real argument.

But see here's the problem, we aren't psychic. And that's not what you said (nor even insinuated). Learn how to communicate and not be condescending.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

"We already pay enough in tax..."

Says who? By what measure? Pretty rich for an Albertan with a giant provincial deficit to make such a clearly delusional statement. Sure costs should be cut but any sober assessment must conclude that more revenues are needed.

At what point is it enough though? The Alberta government already takes in more per capita than either Saskatchewan or BC from my brief look into things. So at what point is it just easier to raise taxes than to find alternative solutions and make tough decisions?

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Because tax is used as a mechanism to achieve policy objectives. Such as ensuring there isn't a permanent under class in your society.

Frankly you've created your own little paradigm that income shouldn't be taxed twice for no other reason than to support your previously held position. Taxes are doubled up all the time. It's not some state of nature by which income can only be taxed once.

Maybe I'm the only one irritated, and maybe I'm in the extreme minority who feel that way (I doubt it), but that's fine. Just because the majority is with you or against you doesn't make you right.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Because tax is used as a mechanism to achieve policy objectives. Such as ensuring there isn't a permanent under class in your society.

Frankly you've created your own little paradigm that income shouldn't be taxed twice for no other reason than to support your previously held position. Taxes are doubled up all the time. It's not some state of nature by which income can only be taxed once.

How about that I don't believe the government is the best mechanism to spend the $ and create jobs?

For the past 20 years job creation has fallen while the tax rate has increased. Soon we can all be taxed at 60% at work for public enterprises with jobs dictated by the government!

Here are the scenarios if someone inherits $:

1. The squander and spend it on 'garbage'. That $$ goes back into economy to mostly private businesses
2. They use it to start businesses, create jobs, etc
3. They save it/continue to grow wealth. If invested in stock market or businesses, it is helping job creation/growth.

The only really issue is when $$ is used to non job creation activities, kept overseas/hidden, or 'fake' jobs that the government dreams up to keep people employed. Heck we have a whole public employment society on moving and sorting garbage now (errrr Sorry, Recycling programs!)

Why do you think the government is better and utilizing funds then private citizens?

[Tinordi]

Laugh. Like clockwork: We've gone from communism to supply side economics. Essentially we're waving our hands at tropes in the hope that we don't have to make hard decisions.

[Mr.Coffee]

Do you ever plan on actually explaining what you believe? Don't forget to be as specific as possible since you have all the answers.