2015 Alberta Budget Discussion

[Ozy_Flame]

On the plus side, the premium (if you're paying it) will be auto-deducted from your paycheque and marked as such. No need to send $X.XX dollars per month via online banking.

[killer_carlson]

nm

[Slava]

I didn't look at all the numbers and everything, but this seems fine to me. I favour a consumption tax anyway, so boosting sin taxes and traffic fines is totally fine with me. Not a huge fan of the health care levy, but whatever.

[me_dennis]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

On the plus side, the premium (if you're paying it) will be auto-deducted from your paycheque and marked as such. No need to send $X.XX dollars per month via online banking.

This isn't good for people with health spending accounts. That means instead of employers paying this levy, it's coming out of our own pockets

[nik-]

Originally Posted by me_dennis

This isn't good for people with health spending accounts. That means instead of employers paying this levy, it's coming out of our own pockets

Your health spending account isn't coming out of your company's pocket?

[Flamenspiel]

Originally Posted by me_dennis

This isn't good for people with health spending accounts. That means instead of employers paying this levy, it's coming out of our own pockets

Not sure what you mean, if the employer pays you cannot get it back as that would be double dipping. A health spending account is typically used on out of pocket medical expenses, I don't think it will be a problem as the paystub will be a receipt that you would submit for re-imbursement from the insurance company's HSA.

[stampsx2]

Anybody dumb this down for me. Am I understanding significantly higher property taxes?

Beginning in 2016-17, the education property tax requisition will be determined on a yearly basis, as was done prior to 2013-14.
Since the government assumed responsibility for education property tax in 1994, the province's share of property tax collected has fallen from 51% to 26%.
Other rate changes:
residential/farmland will decrease to $2.50 per $1000 of equalized assessment
non-residential will decrease to $3.67 per $1000 of equalized assessment

[pylon]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

No, people say tax the wealthy because they are the smallest segment of society that also happens to be the least burdened by taxation.

As an argument, it writes itself.

I've always been on the fence about tax the wealthy more. Basically it penalizes success. I get the haves can contribute more. But without the success of a huge portion of the haves, the have-nots have nobody to work for.

Taxing the rich always just seems like petty jealousy to me.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

This is half-measures though, really. It's a progressive tax that stops at $250,000. Why not have an additional level at $500,000 and $1M? If you're going to do it, go for it.

[pylon]

Correct me if I'm wrong, the extra 1.5% on individuals over 100k isn't retroactive? Say Jim made $150,000/yr, he only has to pay the extra 1.5% on the $50,000 over, not on the whole 150k?

Am I understanding this right?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by pylon

Correct me if I'm wrong, the extra 1.5% on individuals over 100k isn't retroactive? Say Jim made $150,000/yr, he only has to pay the extra 1.5% on the $50,000 over, not on the whole 150k?

Am I understanding this right?

It's not explicitly stated, but that's typically how tax brackets work. That's how federal taxes work.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by pylon

Correct me if I'm wrong, the extra 1.5% on individuals over 100k isn't retroactive? Say Jim made $150,000/yr, he only has to pay the extra 1.5% on the $50,000 over, not on the whole 150k?

Am I understanding this right?

yes. The additional tax is on any money in that bracket.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by pylon

I've always been on the fence about tax the wealthy more. Basically it penalizes success. I get the haves can contribute more. But without the success of a huge portion of the haves, the have-nots have nobody to work for.

Taxing the rich always just seems like petty jealousy to me.

Taxing higher income earners allows for us to have a society that is able to support social programs that encourage the productivity of our society, leading to gains for everyone, including the so called rich.

I don't think it is about jealousy, but rather about a sense of responsibility for being in a country such as Canada that has provided people with the opportunity to be rich

[pylon]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Taxing higher income earners allows for us to have a society that is able to support social programs that encourage the productivity of our society, leading to gains for everyone, including the so called rich.

I don't think it is about jealousy, but rather about a sense of responsibility for being in a country such as Canada that has provided people with the opportunity to be rich

Don't get me wrong, fundamentally I get it.

I just don't think a lot of people realize how hard some of the big earners work to get to where they are. They just think they were handed a 200k/yr job just because.

I have a cousin who is an OB-GYN/ specializes in highly risk pregnancies and is an inter womb surgeon. She spent 17 years in school/residency to get to where she is. Does she make a crap-ton of money now? Yes. Did she basically sacrifice for over half of her working life to finally get to where she is? Likely more than she'll ever earn back. The same can be said for entrepreneurs that employ hundreds of people, and live/breath and sleep their businesses.

Yes, I get why it makes sense. I just wish all the "OMG! Tax the fat cat silver spoon elite!" understood the sacrifices and risks most wealthy people have made, to put themselves in that position. Most of them work harder and longer than any middle class regular Joe.

[GGG]

I like the long term plan to wean us off royalty revenues.

I would have liked to see every department cut by a percentage accross the board but holding the line on spending will slowly do that over the next few years.

I don't mind the tax increases and like health care premiums in general as a reminder that health care isn't free though hopefully collecting them doesn't cost additional funds. It also seems overly conplicated.

Overall I like the direction our dictator for life is taking us.

Over the next few years I hope they look at corporate tax with the focus on making us equal to the next least taxed jurisdiction

[Cappy]

nm

[GGG]

Originally Posted by pylon

Don't get me wrong, fundamentally I get it.

I just don't think a lot of people realize how hard some of the big earners work to get to where they are. They just think they were handed a 200k/yr job just because.

I have a cousin who is an OB-GYN/ specializes in highly risk pregnancies and is an inter womb surgeon. She spent 17 years in school/residency to get to where she is. Does she make a crap-ton of money now? Yes. Did she basically sacrifice for over half of her working life to finally get to where she is? Likely more than she'll ever earn back. The same can be said for entrepreneurs that employ hundreds of people, and live/breath and sleep their businesses.

Yes, I get why it makes sense. I just wish all the "OMG! Tax the fat cat silver spoon elite!" understood the sacrifices and risks most wealthy people have made, to put themselves in that position. Most of them work harder and longer than any middle class regular Joe.

I don't think people understand how hard low income people work. The concept that poor people are poor because they are lazy is false.

Random chance plays just as much a part as hard work does.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by GGG

I don't think people understand how hard low income people work. The concept that poor people are poor because they are lazy is false.

Random chance plays just as much a part as hard work does.

I have always thought that low income people work just as hard as high income people, and I agree with that part. It's not just random luck though. That's ridiculous.

[pylon]

Fair enough, that is not what I am insinuating.

But for the better part, from my observations of some very successful people. There is no such thing as a '9-5' job in their world. The dealer group I used to work for, one of the two brothers that owned it, worked from 6am-10pm every, single, day. I would get emails from him sometimes at 2 in the morning. He treated his employees like absolute gold, and employed over 700 people in this city.

Is it fair for him to be over taxed? That's the guy you want to be happy with his tax rate, or else eventually he'll just say F-it, and shut the whole thing down.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by pylon

Don't get me wrong, fundamentally I get it.

I just don't think a lot of people realize how hard some of the big earners work to get to where they are. They just think they were handed a 200k/yr job just because.

I have a cousin who is an OB-GYN/ specializes in highly risk pregnancies and is an inter womb surgeon. She spent 17 years in school/residency to get to where she is. Does she make a crap-ton of money now? Yes. Did she basically sacrifice for over half of her working life to finally get to where she is? Likely more than she'll ever earn back. The same can be said for entrepreneurs that employ hundreds of people, and live/breath and sleep their businesses.

Yes, I get why it makes sense. I just wish all the "OMG! Tax the fat cat silver spoon elite!" understood the sacrifices and risks most wealthy people have made, to put themselves in that position. Most of them work harder and longer than any middle class regular Joe.

People don't get there on their own. When someone goes to school and trains in Canada for a decade and a half while making little to no money they're reaping the benefits of our society and tax system through things like government subsidized post-secondary education, universal health care, and progressive tax rates which allow them to keep a decent portion of their low income in those years. The money to pay for those things has to come from somewhere.