How the Rich Avoid Paying Taxes

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

The question with that data is what does the top 1% of filers include. Does it include doctors making a few hundred thousand bucks a year? Because those people aren't the ones driving wealth inequality.

Statscan 1% threshold for 2017 was any earner above $236K.

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

All I'm ever saying in my arguments is that we already tax the rich disproportionately. There has been no evidence to suggest otherwise. It's easy to always trot out the "tax the rich!" for the average person because they realize they're not the "rich", so everyone just wants more of someone else paying for things.

The issue is people are trotting - 'tax the rich even more'.

Then the question becomes what is more, and at what point do the rich pick up the ball and take it elsewhere. Its a fine line. I have no issue paying a disproportionately high level of taxes. But everyone views that level differently.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Frankly, in today’s economic climate you’re kind of a chump if you save.

Not only are you a chump if you save, but saving actually makes you poorer today. GICs, and government bonds pay less than inflation and even mortgage rates are now below inflation. The only option if you don't want your nest egg to lose it's value to is to invest in equites, businesses, or buying properties.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Leondros

Statscan 1% threshold for 2017 was any earner above $236K.

That seems quite low to me. Would have expected about double that. EDIT: Nope, I'm wrong... 2018 was 244k. So probably in the 270 area now.

[MoneyGuy]

I don’t mind taxing the rich more. I worry about taxing them so heavily that they shut down businesses here and leave the country for some tax-free or low-tax island.

[CliffFletcher]

The countries that have managed to foster more egalitarian societies - I mean have actually done it, not theorized about socialist utopias on reddit or twitter - have a fairly straightforward model.

* Attract private business with a healthy and educated workforce and moderate corporate tax rates.

* Tax the population working for these business with high income taxes across the board and high sales taxes.

* Use the government revenue generated from those taxes to fund strong public education and healthcare systems.

The key is high taxes across the board. The 1 per cent are too small in number to fund high levels of services. Taxes have to be high at all income levels to raise the kind of money Scandinavian public services cost.

That approach has never been pursued in the Anglosphere because our politics are more divisive, and the left tell people they can have dramatically better lives if only the rich would pay their share. Nobody has the courage or honesty to run on a platform of higher taxes for all. The whole collective ethos of the Northern European approach is missing.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

I don’t mind taxing the rich more. I worry about taxing them so heavily that they shut down businesses here and leave the country for some tax-free or low-tax island.

Is there proof of this actually happening in any material way? Or is it just some myth we're told will happen?

[Winsor_Pilates]

Anyone who makes more than me should be taxed more, but not me. This is basically what the argument always boils down to.

Everyone in this thread is probably in the top 10% earners worldwide.
To those like the OP, why aren't you doing more with your wealth to help people around the globe who have less than you?
Why don't you give away 60% of what you make?
Why always look to the person above you on the income scale and put expectations on them?

[PeteMoss]

The big accounting firms tax wings basically exist for this very reason to help the rich avoid paying taxes.

NY Times had an article this week about the the tax lawyers from the big 4 go to work for the government - work on setting up more favourable tax rules and then come back to their firm as a partner afterward. Focused on the US obviously.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/19/b...sultPosition=1

For six years, Audrey Ellis and Adam Feuerstein worked together at PwC, the giant accounting firm, helping the world’s biggest companies avoid taxes.

In mid-2018, one of Mr. Feuerstein’s clients, an influential association of real estate companies, was trying to persuade government officials that its members should qualify for a new federal tax break. Mr. Feuerstein knew just the person to turn to for help. Ms. Ellis had recently joined the Treasury Department, and she was drafting the rules for this very deduction.

That summer, Ms. Ellis met with Mr. Feuerstein and his client’s lobbyists. The next week, the Treasury granted their wish — a decision potentially worth billions of dollars to PwC’s clients.

About a year later, Ms. Ellis returned to PwC, where she was immediately promoted to partner. She and Mr. Feuerstein now work together advising large companies on how to exploit wrinkles in the tax regulations that Ms. Ellis helped write.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Anyone who makes more than me should be taxed more, but not me. This is basically what the argument always boils down to.

Everyone in this thread is probably in the top 10% earners worldwide.
To those like the OP, why aren't you doing more with your wealth to help people around the globe who have less than you?
Why don't you give away 60% of what you make?
Why always look to the person above you on the income scale and put expectations on them?

I mean this is a pretty silly take. Someone having say 50% of their income over say $1M isn't going to have any troubles providing a high-standard of living for themselves or their family. Someone being taxed 50% of their income over $50k clearly is.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Leondros

How were we even supposed to know your opinion on the matter when you legitimately just posted a title and 2 videos to go along with it?

As some have stated, 'tax the rich' is not a solution. When you have other favorable tax jurisdictions with low barriers to entry you will see the rich leave and take their tax dollars with them. Look at Murray Edwards. Another consideration is that unlike the US which each citizen is taxed on worldwide regardless of place of residence, Canada only taxes deemed residents. That is to say if I want to cut ties with Canada temporarily and live elsewhere, I will not pay a penny in taxes to Canada.

From the 100 times in the Canadian Politics thread where I mentioned we need to get the rich to pay their fair share in taxes.

Yes we need to tax all citizens not just residents, but that's not my main gripe. The biggest problem with the system right now IMO is that those who own huge stock portfolios can secure massive loans at virtually zero interest, live lavishly off the loan money, and basically circumvent the tax law by not bringing in any of what's considered "income" for tax purposes. When the loans are due they can just get more loans to cover off the previous ones, and repeat the cycle indefinitely because the value of their assets increase way faster than their debts do.

And yes it's a big problem that in Canada right now there is no estate tax. In the US there is one, but the rich find sneaky ways around that too, so I'd hope those loopholes get closed if/when Canada implements an estate tax.

The conversation around capital gains tax is a complex one, because you don't want to gut punch small time investors and 401ks, but at the same time you do want to raise more revenue from the ultra wealthy.

That said, keeping tax rates low for the wealthy purely out of fear that they'll leave and go elsewhere, is a fool's errand. When all the countries of the world compete for investor dollars, it becomes a giant reverse-auction and a race to the bottom. In this game, everyone loses except the wealthy. The only way to avoid losing this rigged game is to not play it. I always chuckle when people complain about inflation because "there's too much money circulating in our economy" and then turn around and suggest that we should keep tax rates low to woo more investment dollars to Canada... to add more money to our economy. The bottom line is this: Canada is a beautiful country with great people and a stable economy; people want to live here. Will raising taxes on the rich cause some of the ultra-wealthy to leave? Perhaps. But that outcome is preferable to having a joke tax system where we leave all kinds of loopholes in it because of the misguided notion that wealthy investors are "job creators".

Look at this, the pandemic has caused billionaire wealth to soar while everyone else has been suffering:
https://ips-dc.org/global-billionair...-wealth-surge/

How can anyone not be upset by that? Ultimately, I think there needs to be some kind of shift in the way we tax; there needs to be more emphasis on taxing already accumulated wealth, and less emphasis on taxing income.

[gasman]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I mean this is a pretty silly take. Someone having say 50% of their income over say $1M isn't going to have any troubles providing a high-standard of living for themselves or their family. Someone being taxed 50% of their income over $50k clearly is.

That depends on lifestyle though doesn't it.

The person with the $1MM in income, might have a $5MM house with $20K a month in payments, probably has really nice cars, and spends a ton every month on restaurants, toys, etc.

The person making $150K/year, might have a 600K house with $2k/month in payments, has decent vehicles, and spends on entertainment without even thinking.

The person making $60K/year might rent and has to budget every dollar living paycheque to paycheque

and the person making $25K/year is at the foodbank, barely making it month to month


So who gets to say what the standard of living should be, before we start taxing the crap out of people. The bottom person on the pole, would probably think the person making 60K/year is super lucky and must have money to burn. That person thinks the $150K/year should be taxed more, and so on.

A household in Calgary making $200K/year is probably living comfortably, but they don't live in a $2MM house, with a Tesla in the garage, while they vacation on their private island. (well maybe they do, people around here love debt almost as much as the Liberals)

So do you think we should tax everyone to the point they are living paycheque to paycheque? Everyone should be taxed such that everyone has the same level of lifestyle?

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I mean this is a pretty silly take. Someone having say 50% of their income over say $1M isn't going to have any troubles providing a high-standard of living for themselves or their family. Someone being taxed 50% of their income over $50k clearly is.

No one is paying 50% tax while making 50k and the person making $1M is already paying way more tax.

Should we tax them at 95% so the takehome of both people is the same?
What exactly are you suggesting? At what tax rate have they paid their fair share?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

Maybe I'm naive, but I highly doubt that. Is there any stats to back that up? I feel like a lot outrage is due to stories sensationalizing the few cases that do have people skirting the laws on taxes. If this was really a problem, how come the CRA is not on it like crazy?

The CRA is not exactly the definition of a 'Well Run' Organization.

They've been actively going after off-shore Tax Shelters, Personal Service Businesses, unclaimed tips and Under-the-Table contract work for over a decade with huge resources and budgets.

And they've accomplished little to nothing.

You'd get better results hiring two swarthy Italians with baseball bats.

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

For hockey players, it all counts as income. So deductions, other than the agent's fees, are minimal. Those guys pay a lot of tax.

They can, and obviously in certain circumstances do, but there are also a lot of options and alternatives available to them as well. Forward thinking Retirement planning alternatives that allow for significant Tax Deferrals, etc.

Thats the key for Hockey Players, they have to defer that tax in a savings manner because most tax systems are designed to target people just like them. People who have high dollar incomes over short periods and then very, very low incomes at the back-end of their lives, but there are ways to smooth that front-loaded income out over a longer period to bring marginal rates down.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by gasman

So do you think we should tax everyone to the point they are living paycheque to paycheque? Everyone should be taxed such that everyone has the same level of lifestyle?

That's a really weird conclusion to jump to. Someone making $2M/year is still walking away with around $1.2M - $1.3M after taxes under the current system. Even if you added a 60% rate on any income made over $1M, they're still taking home around $1M after taxes annually.

Would they maybe have to cut down on the number of toys and vacation homes? Possibly. But that's hardly living paycheck to paycheck.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by puckedoff

I like the sentiment of 'tax the rich', but when you look at the stats something like the top 20% of earners pay 65% of all the income tax. I know that income tax is only a portion of the tax bill but to me, it looks like we are taxing the rich and they are paying their taxes.

That's kind of like saying the top 1% of best hockey players in the world make 100% of NHL salaries. Of course tax revenues are going to mostly come from people who can afford to pay the most. It's a pointless and silly statistic that proves nothing. And it also ignores that the fact that the fortunes of the wealthy grow off the backs of the hard working middle class.

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Anyone who makes more than me should be taxed more, but not me. This is basically what the argument always boils down to.

Everyone in this thread is probably in the top 10% earners worldwide.
To those like the OP, why aren't you doing more with your wealth to help people around the globe who have less than you?
Why don't you give away 60% of what you make?
Why always look to the person above you on the income scale and put expectations on them?

Because capitalism is an economic system based on coercion and exploitation. It is only legitimate if adequate mechanisms are put in place to ensure the well being of all citizens, and keep wealth inequality somewhat in check.

Also, luck plays a bigger role in a person's economic fortunes, than most people are willing to admit.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

No one is paying 50% tax while making 50k and the person making $1M is already paying way more tax.

Should we tax them at 95% so the takehome of both people is the same?
What exactly are you suggesting? At what tax rate have they paid their fair share?

Your first post suggested that people in this thread should give away 60% of what they make as if that 60% doesn't scale wildly differently depending on which end of the income spectrum they fall. Even someone making $100k annually giving away 60% of their income puts them in a far more precarious position than someone who makes over $1M paying a 60% marginal tax rate on everything they make over $1M.

No one is asking rich people to suddenly live like poor people. The people who are pro taxing the rich more are just saying there are probably tangible benefits to society as a whole by making them slightly less rich and redistributing some of that money.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Because capitalism is an economic system based on coercion and exploitation.

What are the alternatives based on?

[gasman]

Originally Posted by rubecube

That's a really weird conclusion to jump to. Someone making $2M/year is still walking away with around $1.2M - $1.3M after taxes under the current system. Even if you added a 60% rate on any income made over $1M, they're still taking home around $1M after taxes annually.

Would they maybe have to cut down on the number of toys and vacation homes? Possibly. But that's hardly living paycheck to paycheck.

So it will be you determining which level of lifestyle we tax everyone into?

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

What are the alternatives based on?

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque