How the Rich Avoid Paying Taxes

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

My big issue with this is the 400M estate is already after tax money and therefore should not be taxed again.

I’ve never understood that argument. When you pay sales tax on something with money you’ve already paid income tax on, you’re being ‘taxed again.’ I don’t see the unfairness.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by GGG

What problem are you trying to solve?

When you read these posts, do you see an attempt at problem solving, or do you see someone who's ideologically motivated and angry at vaguely-defined a group of people?

This isn't an attempt to solve a problem. It's a holy war.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by gasman

I guess I still don't see the connection between billionaires in the world and deficits in Canada

Canada can only influence Canadian tax policy, so I was pointing out that you could tax all the billionaires in Canada at 100% of their net worth and it still wouldn't touch our deficit let alone our expenses.

The amount of wealth out side of Canada is largely irrelevant to anything.

If you don't understand what the phrase "giving you a sense of perspective" means, I can't help you.

Originally Posted by GGG

What problem are you trying to solve?

It seems your are equating government budget deficits with wealth inequality. I don’t think that the math works in Canada even ignoring the wealth flight affect.

The top .1% have an income of 1.6-2million so that’s about 25000 people maybe 30,000. So that’s about 60 billion in income. And in terms of funding programs income rather than wealth is what we need to tax. That’s really not enough to do anything with. Even looking at their wealth and taxing a portion of the 4% SWR you still aren’t moving the needle. The answer to the problem you seem to have is to tax wage earning employees at historic rates in order to offer historic levels of service.

How do you propose to tax and is it sustainable even assuming there is no capital flight?

Now if we want to look at wealth inequality that’s a different discussion but it’s idenoendant of funding government.

They are interconnected. When a government spends more than it takes in, there are only one of three ways to deal with it: 1) austerity, which means cutting services/lifelines from those who need them, 2) raising taxes, and figuring out who pays how much more and on what, or 3) leave things as is, and continue running the deficits at current levels.

The 3rd option creates inflation; I don't think anyone disagrees there. However, the question is are we ok with dealing with some increase in the level of inflation? If not, then we have to look at the other two options. #1 is, in my opinion, incredibly callous and barbaric, so that leaves #2. The question then is, who should be looked upon to pay more? The middle class who are already squeezed, or the wealthy who can afford to pay more?

That's what the crux of the disagreement here is. Whose "fault" is it that the government is running record deficits, and what if anything should be done about it? To me, the answer is clear.

And let's not forget, government deficits is not some new problem brought upon by the pandemic. They have been around for as long as society has. Generally speaking, the only times governments have balanced budgets in the past has been via austerity, and the reason is largely because of consistent shortfalls in the amount of revenue collected from those who can most easily afford to contribute to the well being of society.

So no, I'm not asking for "historic levels of service". I'm just asking that the millionaires & billionaires in this country (really, the world tbh) treat the rest of society with basic decency. That's all.

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

When you read these posts, do you see an attempt at problem solving, or do you see someone who's ideologically motivated and angry at vaguely-defined a group of people?

This isn't an attempt to solve a problem. It's a holy war.

This coming from the guy who thinks a blackface video from 20 years ago and the SNC Lavalin scandal are of more pressing concern to us than the future of the planet and the generations of people who (presumably) will live on it. The guy who thinks voting out Trudeau and replacing him with OToole will do anything to curb government corruption. Irony much?

Yup, holy war. You nailed it bud.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

The 3rd option creates inflation; I don't think anyone disagrees there. However, the question is are we ok with dealing with some increase in the level of inflation? If not, then we have to look at the other two options. #1 is, in my opinion, incredibly callous and barbaric, so that leaves #2. The question then is, who should be looked upon to pay more? The middle class who are already squeezed, or the wealthy who can afford to pay more?

That's what the crux of the disagreement here is. Whose "fault" is it that the government is running record deficits, and what if anything should be done about it? To me, the answer is clear.

The answer is actually really clear. The "rich" actually want and demand basically zero levels of public service aside from existing in a stable first world society. They will fly to the US for health care, use the 407, private schools, hire a nanny or two so they don't use child care and so forth, yet they are charged the most. On the other hand, the people that use the system the most, pay the least. If you're asking whose fault it is for the government running record deficits, it's actually the middle and lower class demanding services that their taxes (if they pay any) don't cover.

If you look at a Scandinavian country, they have a VAT of 20-25% in order to offer the levels of service we want. Consider that the tax rates on "the rich" in those countries is actually quite similar to Canada. The difference is the 20% in GST (or whatever lower # that makes it equivalent to a VAT) that we don't charge here.

What's the solution? I'm not sure, but your crusade against the rich may be misplaced.

[GGG]

So then how does the math work out in Canada presuming you had zero side affects at what % your you tax the high income earners? Their 60 billion in income is already taxed at 47% marginal rate.

75% would net us another 15 billion per year. As an alternative we could tax 20 million tax payers $700 per year more to raise and equal amount of money.

https://www.oecd.org/tax/revenue-statistics-canada.pdf

But the real problem is taxation as a % of GDP. Sweden collects significantly more tax dollars over all

https://taxfoundation.org/bernie-san...untries-taxes/

So if you look at the above link the top tax rates in the Nordic countries start at 1.3 -1.6 times average incomes so somewhere above 75-80k the marginal rate would be 53%.

Taxing people in the 25% not the .1% is the issue.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by GGG

So then how does the math work out in Canada presuming you had zero side affects at what % your you tax the high income earners? Their 60 billion in income is already taxed at 47% marginal rate.

75% would net us another 15 billion per year. As an alternative we could tax 20 million tax payers $700 per year more to raise and equal amount of money.

https://www.oecd.org/tax/revenue-statistics-canada.pdf

But the real problem is taxation as a % of GDP. Sweden collects significantly more tax dollars over all

https://taxfoundation.org/bernie-san...untries-taxes/

So if you look at the above link the top tax rates in the Nordic countries start at 1.3 -1.6 times average incomes so somewhere above 75-80k the marginal rate would be 53%.

Taxing people in the 25% not the .1% is the issue.

But if we took ALL of their money, that's 60 billion a year! Geez think progressively

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

New thread topic: Why is it that the dumbest people in society think they have the solutions to the most complex issues?

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

New thread topic: Why is it that the dumbest people in society think they have the solutions to the most complex issues?

It's called the Dunning Kruger Effect

https://www.verywellmind.com/an-over...effect-4160740

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Yes.

Yes it is.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I love how some conservatives have zero ability to see beyond self-interest and just project that on to everyone else.

Are you of the opinion that you are not speaking from a position of self interest? Because if so, I call bull####.

I can honestly say that I always approach these issues from the point of view of what I believe is best for the economy. However, I am also completely aware of the fact that we all (including myself) maintain a self interest.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

It's called the Dunning Kruger Effect

https://www.verywellmind.com/an-over...effect-4160740

You and your buddy are clearly suffering from it.

[TorqueDog]

The timing of an estate tax would probably be just perfect to screw millennials out of whatever they might get from their parents.

I’m not really expecting to get much to begin with, but all an estate tax serves to do is make sure me and people like me get even less. No thanks.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Are you of the opinion that you are not speaking from a position of self interest? Because if so, I call bull####.

I would say most of the topics I feel the strongest about probably have very little direct impact on me personally. The only exception I can really think of is my stance on mandatory vaccinations/vaccine passports because I'm immunocompromised and I've already contracted COVID once. I would like to be able to live my life without constantly being worried if I'm going to contract a deadly virus.

Economically-speaking, I'm fine with where I'm at and I'm mostly concerned with seeing the people who work hard and can't get ahead be lifted up.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Regorium

On the other hand, the people that use the system the most, pay the least. If you're asking whose fault it is for the government running record deficits, it's actually the middle and lower class demanding services that their taxes (if they pay any) don't cover.

This post hits it on the head. There's few things that piss me off more than people who make around middle class income but every election demand a litany of incremental government programs/benefits like it's somehow a violation of their human rights to not be provided those things without having to pay any more themselves.

Those folks pay in aggregate ~7-10k/yr in cash taxes but demand in addition to free healthcare, education and the smattering of government services already available to them that their measly taxes come up no where close to paying for their personal share of, $10/day daycare, pharmacare, fee post secondary tuition etc. etc. and it's all up to someone else to pay for it.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

This post hits it on the head. There's few things that piss me off more than people who make around middle class income but every election demand a litany of incremental government programs/benefits like it's somehow a violation of their human rights to not be provided those things without having to pay any more themselves.



Those folks pay in aggregate ~7-10k/yr in cash taxes but demand in addition to free healthcare, education and the smattering of government services already available to them that their measly taxes come up no where close to paying for their personal share of, $10/day daycare, pharmacare, fee post secondary tuition etc. etc. and it's all up to someone else to pay for it.

I'd happily pay a more taxes for free post-secondary, universal child care, etc., despite the fact that I'm already graduated and will never have children.

Why is the general betterment of society so abhorrent to some people?

Also, do rich people think they don't benefit from having a healthy and educated workforce?

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

My big issue with this is the 400M estate is already after tax money and therefore should not be taxed again.

Taxes aren't meant to be a one-time thing; think of them as more of a fee charged by governments anytime money/assets are involved in transactions and changes hands.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I'd happily pay a more taxes for free post-secondary, universal child care, etc., despite the fact that I'm already graduated and will never have children.

Why is the general betterment of society so abhorrent to some people?

Also, do rich people think they don't benefit from having a healthy and educated workforce?

I dont think they would be if there werent such a long and illustrious track-record of waste, scandal and embezzlement.

Distrust of Government woefully mis-spending public funds is a distrust that has been earned.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

New thread topic: Why is it that the dumbest people in society think they have the solutions to the most complex issues?

Feels a bit unnecessary.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Regorium

The answer is actually really clear. The "rich" actually want and demand basically zero levels of public service aside from existing in a stable first world society. They will fly to the US for health care, use the 407, private schools, hire a nanny or two so they don't use child care and so forth, yet they are charged the most. On the other hand, the people that use the system the most, pay the least. If you're asking whose fault it is for the government running record deficits, it's actually the middle and lower class demanding services that their taxes (if they pay any) don't cover.

If you look at a Scandinavian country, they have a VAT of 20-25% in order to offer the levels of service we want. Consider that the tax rates on "the rich" in those countries is actually quite similar to Canada. The difference is the 20% in GST (or whatever lower # that makes it equivalent to a VAT) that we don't charge here.

What's the solution? I'm not sure, but your crusade against the rich may be misplaced.

The rich benefit off the system the most. Wealth doesn't exist in a vacuum. The more assets you have, the more you depend on others to support and grow your income.

We exist as a society. Those flights, nannies, private hospitals, private schools, etc .. Don't exist without a strong social program underneath them.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I'd happily pay a more taxes for free post-secondary, universal child care, etc., despite the fact that I'm already graduated and will never have children.

Why is the general betterment of society so abhorrent to some people?

Also, do rich people think they don't benefit from having a healthy and educated workforce?

I'm for free post secondary, but only if the system is more controlled. Allowing endless numbers of students to get non useful degrees on the tax payers dime is absurd. Countries like Sweden, the have free post secondary, also have very strong controls on how many students get to study in each field. They also duvet more people into trades earlier, which is also a great policy. A country like Canada needing to import skilled laborers is absurd, and it all has to do with the Canadian notion that getting a useless degree makes you more fulfilled or a better person than learning a valuable trade.

We could actually save a huge amount of money if we stopped mostly funding all the useless degree and began totally funding the ones we actually need.