Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

There's a huge difference between government/corporate communications being written in plain English (or French) vs. what PP is proposing here: he wants actual laws to be written that way. Laws, by their very nature, must be explicit, detailed, and precise in how they are written or else they will be open to unintended consequences, misinterpretation, or abuse of loopholes.

Moreover, there are endless words that have judicially determined meaning ascribed to them through precedent. I can go on a Carswell service right now, click "words and phrases", type in just about anything, and I'll see what that word has been interpreted to mean in various contexts by judges, in some cases going back hundreds of years.

What the average person thinks sounds like plain English and makes sense to them might have a weird legal effect due to a line of cases that has affirmed and reaffirmed a particular definition for a word that has special importance in a particular industry context (insurance being an obvious example).

[Igottago]

There's no way it wont expand to other items the government or resentful people want to eventually declare "luxury". It's already been suggested a few times in this thread. So, why shouldn't Flames season ticket holders be levied an additional tax? Going to every hockey game each season seems pretty luxurious.

There are plenty of fairly normal people, in Calgary let's say, who after decades of working hard and managing their money wisely, could treat themselves to their dream car at $100k as they get close to retirement. And it's not like these folks are wandering around in flashy suits throwing money at people like the million dollar man. They may have just happened to make financial decisions that created that option for them later in life. They might have forgone other things in life to create that opportunity. They might even be willing to put a fairly significant amount of their net worth towards the purchase if it's that important to them. The government has no idea the weight of this financial decision on the buyer. This tax doesn't account for that, its overly simplistic, judgemental, and not well thought out.

"I think it is entirely reasonable to say to someone who has $100,000 to spend on a car or a plane, or $250,000 to spend on a boat, 'You need to pay a 10 per cent tax to help everybody else,'" Freeland said during a news conference following her tour."

Just a ridiculous statement. Many of these folks have already paid plenty of taxes, probably given significant amounts to charities, might own business that are beneficial to to Canadian society. Yet you want to be opportunists and just grasp for what you think is loose change when they are simply making a consumer choice? It just seems like a pathetic thing to do.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Consumption tax is the best type of tax. I would love a proper mix of no-little income tax - Maybe some level is still needed as income levels escalate (or maybe just changes to capital gain if no income tax) and pure/majority of taxes be consumption based.

Piling consumptions taxes on top of income tax just because "These people can afford to pay more" - That isn't an environment I support.

Counter point, Consumption tax is the worst type of tax.

It only benefits those who can afford not to consume all of their assets on a weekly basis. Regardless of the income level anyone who is not living week-week on their income will benefit from a consumption tax, because they get to differ the expense of being taxed to the future. Meaning anyway that you develop to consumption tax it is purely regressive in nature.

And the arguments that you just exempt essential goods is paternalistic. Telling those who are living paycheck to paycheck that it's OK to buy milk and bread you'll save 10%. but buying a used car from a dealership, or a condo, or a better comparison maybe some fast food because they were late for work one day, we're going to have to ding you for that. On any given day all kinds of things can be essential to being a functioning contributor to society, it's not a simple list you can sketch out.

Differed expenses generating returns basically describes the entire economic imbalance we have in our society, and it's not something that needs to be explicitly encouraged. It would be a different story if we had economies that were begging for economic investments, but there is capital everywhere in the world just begging for a good place to go (look at crypto-currency, and entire cottage industry of ponzi schemes arose in a decade gathering up a trillion dollars of investment, because people didn't know what else they could invest in).

If you had a good progressive tax structure on all earnings, including capital then just like a consumption tax the wealthy would have to pay more, but they would no longer be able to dig into societies share of their economic output and reinvest it for future personal gain.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Igottago

There's no way it wont expand to other items the government or resentful people want to eventually declare "luxury". It's already been suggested a few times in this thread. So, why shouldn't Flames season ticket holders be levied an additional tax? Going to every hockey game each season seems pretty luxurious.

There are plenty of fairly normal people, in Calgary let's say, who after decades of working hard and managing their money wisely, could treat themselves to their dream car at $100k as they get close to retirement. And it's not like these folks are wandering around in flashy suits throwing money at people like the million dollar man. They may have just happened to make financial decisions that created that option for them later in life. They might have forgone other things in life to create that opportunity. They might even be willing to put a fairly significant amount of their net worth towards the purchase if it's that important to them. The government has no idea the weight of this financial decision on the buyer. This tax doesn't account for that, its overly simplistic, judgemental, and not well thought out.

"I think it is entirely reasonable to say to someone who has $100,000 to spend on a car or a plane, or $250,000 to spend on a boat, 'You need to pay a 10 per cent tax to help everybody else,'" Freeland said during a news conference following her tour."

Just a ridiculous statement. Many of these folks have already paid plenty of taxes, probably given significant amounts to charities, might own business that are beneficial to to Canadian society. Yet you want to be opportunists and just grasp for what you think is loose change when they are simply making a consumer choice? It just seems like a pathetic thing to do.

So is it the $100k quantum that you object to? Better if it was $200k? Is it the word luxury that causes the problem?

This is a means based consumption tax. It doesn't matter if the purchaser is "normal folk", a sports star, drug dealer or lottery winner. If they can afford a massive purchase such as this, they need to pay extra tax. As I mentioned in an earlier post, most if not all of these purchases are more price inelastic. It won't matter to the purchaser, except perhaps your dreamed up scenario, in which case they may need to struggle with that $95k car.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

So is it the $100k quantum that you object to? Better if it was $200k? Is it the word luxury that causes the problem?

This is a means based consumption tax. It doesn't matter if the purchaser is "normal folk", a sports star, drug dealer or lottery winner. If they can afford a massive purchase such as this, they need to pay extra tax. As I mentioned in an earlier post, most if not all of these purchases are more price inelastic. It won't matter to the purchaser, except perhaps your dreamed up scenario, in which case they may need to struggle with that $95k car.

How can you say what will or wont matter to the purchaser? If a couple worked for decades and were able to plan to come up with just enough to get their dream boat to go sailing in retirement, yet now are dinged an additional $25k, it might not be chump change to them.

Just be honest and say you don't care if its not you.

This is nothing more than a punitive tax based on perceived wealth.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Igottago

How can you say what will or wont matter to the purchaser? If a couple worked for decades and were able to plan to come up with just enough to get their dream boat to go sailing in retirement, yet now are dinged an additional $25k, it might not be chump change to them.

Just be honest and say you don't care if its not you.

This is nothing more than a punitive tax based on perceived wealth.

It isn't based on perceived wealth, it's based on wealth.

I am one of those "typical" CPers. I make a comfortable salary. I would love to own an Aston Martin, but I probably never will. I won't because it is a luxury item that I just don't need. If I change my mind on that, I guess I am paying another $25 k or whatever. No one should feel sorry for me either way.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

So is it the $100k quantum that you object to? Better if it was $200k? Is it the word luxury that causes the problem?

Actually, yeah. There is a massive difference between 100k on a car and 200k. You can easily spend 100k on a Lexus. When you're getting up into 200k, that's exclusively elite level cars and supercars.

This is a means based consumption tax. It doesn't matter if the purchaser is "normal folk", a sports star, drug dealer or lottery winner. If they can afford a massive purchase such as this, they need to pay extra tax.

Why do they need to pay extra tax simply because afford something like that? Anyone who happens to be in a position to spend 100k on their car has too much money, for you, and needs to have some that property taken away from them? What if someone could easily spend that much, but doesn't care about cars and instead spends the same or more on regular trips to tropical countries?

At least the guy who buys the car is a) presumably buying it from a Canadian business or seller; b) buying gas, insurance, maybe detailing and other automotive services from Canadian businesses; c) in all likelihood, using that car more often to travel within Canada (i.e. driving out to Banff, or Revelstoke, or Kelowna, or whatever) and spending tourist dollars here.

I'm not sure this luxury use of funds is a worse use than any other such that it should be singled out for additional taxation. I also can't imagine it'll raise much revenue. It just reads as a cheap political tactic a la "yeah, suck it, Richie Rich", rather than good policy.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Actually, yeah. There is a massive difference between 100k on a car and 200k. You can easily spend 100k on a Lexus. When you're getting up into 200k, that's exclusively elite level cars and supercars.

Why do they need to pay extra tax simply because afford something like that? Anyone who happens to be in a position to spend 100k on their car has too much money, for you, and needs to have some that property taken away from them? What if someone could easily spend that much, but doesn't care about cars and instead spends the same or more on regular trips to tropical countries?

At least the guy who buys the car is a) presumably buying it from a Canadian business or seller; b) buying gas, insurance, maybe detailing and other automotive services from Canadian businesses; c) in all likelihood, using that car more often to travel within Canada (i.e. driving out to Banff, or Revelstoke, or Kelowna, or whatever) and spending tourist dollars here.

I'm not sure this luxury use of funds is better than any other. I can't imagine it'll raise much revenue. It just reads as a cheap political tactic rather than good policy.

I have plenty of time for the argument that it perhaps it should be 200k rather than 100k. I know Teslas and loaded F150s can get there and I don't necessarily think it is luxury. But otherwise I think it is a fairly simple tax, with the understanding that no one loves to be taxed. It doesn't seem like a stretch that it would be more progressive taxing luxury items than say all sales or raise all income tax rates.

Edit: The "need" is that we are running huge deficits. I would also be in favour of a simplified tax system that closes loopholes that the wealthy can take advantage of.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

It isn't based on perceived wealth, it's based on wealth.

I am one of those "typical" CPers. I make a comfortable salary. I would love to own an Aston Martin, but I probably never will. I won't because it is a luxury item that I just don't need. If I change my mind on that, I guess I am paying another $25 k or whatever. No one should feel sorry for me either way.

Thats your choice, but maybe one day you want a Rolex, or I dunno, a golf membership or something. Anything could be considered a luxury to someone else. So for now its the $100k car, but we'll see where it goes. It's the principle of the thing the concerns me. For consumer goods, I don't see a reason to punish people who strive for particular products over others. That's why I brought up the example of Flames seasons tickets. They are expensive, but I'm sure many people choose to spend their money on them over other things, because it's important to them. That's their choice as a consumer. I'm sure someone out there would be okay with taxing that as a luxury item. It's always going to be subjective.

The idea of taxing a certain set of products extra because someone else thinks its too nice, or you're too rich because you bought it -- just not a good way of doing things IMO. It's ridiculous on principle.

[iggy_oi]

It must be really hard being wealthy. Single detached starter homes in Calgary increased in price by $50k-$100k over the last year for people who were already struggling to afford them, but tacking on an extra 5-10% on a novelty item like a Lamborghini is going to be a massive burden? Give me a break.

Maybe if there weren’t so many tax evading loophole options available for those people the government wouldn’t need to look for other ways to increase revenues.

[Locke]

I just dont like the concept of the Government finding new things to tax whenever the fancy strikes them.

What else can we tax?

Eventually we're going to have to take a long hard look at the frivolous crap we spend money on because you cant always depend on taxing your way out of trouble.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Locke

I just dont like the concept of the Government finding new things to tax whenever the fancy strikes them.

What else can we tax?

Eventually we're going to have to take a long hard look at the frivolous crap we spend money on because you cant always depend on taxing your way out of trouble.

I hear ya but at the same time things like profiteering ain’t making things any cheaper either so I can’t comprehend why people are so worked up about a tax like this while ignoring the fact that for people who are actually struggling costs for almost everything are going up while wages are stagnating.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

It must be really hard being wealthy. Single detached starter homes in Calgary increased in price by $50k-$100k over the last year for people who were already struggling to afford them, but tacking on an extra 5-10% on a novelty item like a Lamborghini is going to be a massive burden? Give me a break.

Maybe if there weren’t so many tax evading loophole options available for those people the government wouldn’t need to look for other ways to increase revenues.

Shouldn't the priority be to close the loopholes instead of finding new ways to tax people? New forms of taxation just bury the folks who can't afford to hire tax and accounting professionals who get paid to find loopholes

[Locke]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I hear ya but at the same time things like profiteering ain’t making things any cheaper either so I can’t comprehend why people are so worked up about a tax like this while ignoring the fact that for people who are actually struggling costs for almost everything are going up while wages are stagnating.

I think thats part of the basic premise here. The cost of everything is going up and people are advocating to slap an additional tax on them.

Even if, and I'm being seriously hypothetical here, but even if a consumption tax was instituted and they scrapped income tax as a result the people who are struggling are likely paying little to no income tax anyways.

You might as well round them up and make Soylent Green out of them because this is essentially going to generate the same result.

"We're going to scrap income tax that you likely already dont pay and instead we're going to make the cost of the goods you need to live far higher."

Genius move. If you want to eliminate poverty what better way than to simply price the poor out of life?

[CliffFletcher]

If the goal is to demonstrate to the public that you’re willing to punish the rich, then set the luxury/consumption tax threshold high.

If the goal is to raise a lot of revenue for the state, then set the threshold lower.

Take a look at sales tax rates in Europe: 17-27 per cent (EU average 21). Because far more goods and services pass through the hands of the middle and working class than the richest 2-5 per cent of citizens.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Shouldn't the priority be to close the loopholes instead of finding new ways to tax people? New forms of taxation just bury the folks who can't afford to hire tax and accounting professionals who get paid to find loopholes

Which ones?

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Which ones?

The ones the iggy is loosely referring to.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Shouldn't the priority be to close the loopholes instead of finding new ways to tax people? New forms of taxation just bury the folks who can't afford to hire tax and accounting professionals who get paid to find loopholes

I’m gonna go out on a limb and suggest that people who can afford the items that this tax targets can probably also afford accountants

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Locke

I think thats part of the basic premise here. The cost of everything is going up and people are advocating to slap an additional tax on them.

Ok sure. But another part of the basic premise here is that necessities are very different from luxury purchases like high end sports cars and no one seems to be proposing changes to address that. Instead they’re trying to argue that a slight increase to the price of these high end items are going to be bad for working class people.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I’m gonna go out on a limb and suggest that people who can afford the items that this tax targets can probably also afford accountants

But what about the couple who each made 45K a year for their entire lives, saved money religiously by amongst other things doing their own taxes because they wanted to buy a 100K car and now they cannot afford it due to this extra tax. Have you thought about that totally realistic scenario?