• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Canadian PoliGAF - 42nd Parliament: Sunny Ways in Trudeaupia

Status
Not open for further replies.

MDR1750

Neo Member
This will be pretty classic if it turns out to be the case. Good job Libs. Go into deficit for a pointless tax cut to the top 10%.

We'll probably see this hole in the budget fester for a few years until it gets pretty bad and some future government, Lib or Conservative has to slash funding to social programs to restore the balance. I'm sure no government will dare touch this tax cut though.

You are being a little misleading with that "top 10%" comment. About 9 million Canadians benefit from the cut (Department of Finance press release). The "average" (not maximum) benefit to those 9 million people is $330 for singles and $540 for couples.

The "top 10%" get the most benefit from the cut, but they are not the only ones who benefit. Two spouses who each earn $90,563 would benefit most (benefit of $680 each or $1,360 combined).

You can still debate how useful an average benefit of $330 to $540 really is.

Also note the article numbers are out of date. The tax cut will apply to the $45,282, to $90,563 bracket in 2016.
 

Divvy

Canadians burned my passport
Do property taxes work the same everywhere? I only know how the system works in Toronto and it's backwards and convoluted.
 

MDR1750

Neo Member
I think it'd be good to simplify the tax system in general, so that we can spend less money and time doing tax paperwork and reduce spending on the bureaucracy. I'm thinking something along the lines of only having income, sales and a carbon tax. (Income here including capital gains and investment income). So we'd get rid of property taxes and corporate taxes.

And along the same line of thought of reducing spending on bureaucracy, I'd like to see a lot of our welfare systems rolled into the tax system as tax credits. It'd hopefully be more efficient than having entire separate bureaucracies for them.

Going to post an illustrative example because I know most people here don't understand how corporate taxes work. You can’t just remove corporate tax without creating all sorts of problems.

Ontario individual earns a salary of $220k and also holds investments that generate $10,000 in interest income (keeping this simple by not using dividends or capital gains). Every dollar of taxable income over $220k is taxed at 49.53% (this is the top 2015 federal + Ontario rate).

This individual pays $4,953 in tax on $10,000 of interest income and has $5,047 of after tax dollars to reinvest.

If the individual instead transfers the investments to his wholly owned Ontario corporation (which can be done without triggering any tax on the transfer), the corporation pays tax at 46.17% on the $10,000 of interest income and has $5,383 to reinvest if it does not pay out a dividend right away.

But let’s say it does pay out dividend. The corporation will get a refund of $2,667 on the taxes it paid on the interest income, so the actual amount it can pay out in dividends is $8,050, not $5,383.

Individual receives a dividend of $8,050 and pays tax at 40.13%, leaving after tax dollars of $4,820. The rate is 40.13% and not 49.53% because the 40.13% is net of a dividend tax credit the individual receives.

The $4,820 of after tax dollars is $227 less than the $5,047 of after tax dollars the individual would have had if he earned the $10,000 of interest income directly without use of the corporation. This $227 difference is the cost of earning the income through the corporation.

One of the government’s objectives is to make this difference $0 since that would make individuals indifferent between earning income directly or through a corporation (this is called “perfect integration”). It’s not possible to get perfect integration since provinces set their own rates, but in Ontario it’s pretty close.

Now let’s say corporate taxes are eliminated. In the above example, the individual transfers the investments to the Ontario corporation, and with a 0% tax rate the corporation has $10,000 of after tax earnings to reinvest. This is a huge difference from the $5,047 of after tax dollars to invest by earning the income at the individual level. There is much less incentive to take the money out of the corporation.

Everyone with investments would just hold them through corporations, and the wealthy would benefit the most since they can just let their investments and wealth compound tax free for life.

This example dealt with investment earnings. Business earnings work differently and create a larger tax deferral at the corporate level so more after tax dollars are available to reinvest back into the business. I’m not going to go through a whole example on that since this post is already too long.

This post is just for educational purposes and is not tax advice.
 

maharg

idspispopd
Going to post an illustrative example because I know most people here don't understand how corporate taxes work. You can’t just remove corporate tax without creating all sorts of problems.

..snip...

Thank you for posting this. I started writing a post about how outright eliminating corporate taxes would just result in them being used as tax shelters more than they already are. But then I didn't finish, and I'm glad I didn't, because this is much better than I'd have done.

You are being a little misleading with that "top 10%" comment. About 9 million Canadians benefit from the cut (Department of Finance press release). The "average" (not maximum) benefit to those 9 million people is $330 for singles and $540 for couples.

The "top 10%" get the most benefit from the cut, but they are not the only ones who benefit. Two spouses who each earn $90,563 would benefit most (benefit of $680 each or $1,360 combined).

You can still debate how useful an average benefit of $330 to $540 really is.

Also note the article numbers are out of date. The tax cut will apply to the $45,282, to $90,563 bracket in 2016.

However, I think it's worth pointing out that using the average (assuming they mean the mean, which is usually the case with PR) is itself a bit misleading. Given the top-heavy nature of the benefit, it's really likely that most people in this 9 million person bracket do not achieve the average benefit (ie. the median is probably below the mean).
 

SRG01

Member
I don't think anyone has defended property taxes. Hell, go back a few pages and find me ranting about municipal tax powers. What I find hilarious is gutter's bizarre notion that regressive taxes are communist.

Oh don't get me wrong, I laughed pretty hard at the communist thing and moved on :)

In a perfect world, everything including property taxes would have a marginal rate. Hell, sales tax needs to have a marginal rate.
 

Tiktaalik

Member
You are being a little misleading with that "top 10%" comment. About 9 million Canadians benefit from the cut (Department of Finance press release). The "average" (not maximum) benefit to those 9 million people is $330 for singles and $540 for couples.

The "top 10%" get the most benefit from the cut, but they are not the only ones who benefit. Two spouses who each earn $90,563 would benefit most (benefit of $680 each or $1,360 combined).

You can still debate how useful an average benefit of $330 to $540 really is.

Also note the article numbers are out of date. The tax cut will apply to the $45,282, to $90,563 bracket in 2016.

You are correct. I am largely criticizing the fact that the people who receive the greatest benefits are the top 10% that absolutely do not need these benefits.

Additionally I think the Liberals intentionally framed this tax cut promise so as to take advantage of typical Canadian tax code ignorance in making it sound like people who were earning ~45k were getting a tax cut, when in reality they were basically going to get nothing (fair game I guess).

As we can see from the last page ignorance of the tax system is a real problem and can be exploited.
 
You are correct. I am largely criticizing the fact that the people who receive the greatest benefits are the top 10% that absolutely do not need these benefits.

Additionally I think the Liberals intentionally framed this tax cut promise so as to take advantage of typical Canadian tax code ignorance in making it sound like people who were earning ~45k were getting a tax cut, when in reality they were basically going to get nothing (fair game I guess).

As we can see from the last page ignorance of the tax system is a real problem and can be exploited.

they already pay almost nothing in income taxes. (those under 45k)
 

SRG01

Member
You are correct. I am largely criticizing the fact that the people who receive the greatest benefits are the top 10% that absolutely do not need these benefits.

Additionally I think the Liberals intentionally framed this tax cut promise so as to take advantage of typical Canadian tax code ignorance in making it sound like people who were earning ~45k were getting a tax cut, when in reality they were basically going to get nothing (fair game I guess).

As we can see from the last page ignorance of the tax system is a real problem and can be exploited.

they already pay almost nothing in income taxes. (those under 45k)

Just a couple of points to these two posts:

- People under 45k do pay quite a bit of income tax... not as high as say the 90k bracket, but still quite a bit. Tax relief would be useful for them. However:
- People of lower incomes generally need other forms of assistance aside from income tax breaks. I am of the belief that impoverished people are best helped by social assistance and direct intervention/relief of social circumstances, and not more tax breaks. Whether that threshold is 45k or not is another question altogether.
 
Do tax brackets get adjusted with inflation? If so is it handled automatically (like previous amount * (1 + inflation rate)) or does it need hand adjustment by legislation?

If not it seems like over time tax rate would effectively increase (as would government revenue) for people at lower wages.
 

maharg

idspispopd
Do tax brackets get adjusted with inflation? If so is it handled automatically (like previous amount * (1 + inflation rate)) or does it need hand adjustment by legislation?

If not it seems like over time tax rate would effectively increase (as would government revenue) for people at lower wages.

Yes, the brackets are indexed to inflation. I believe it was under Chretien that this became the case. http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/nwsrm/fctshts/2014/m11/fs141125-eng.html
 

Guesong

Member
they already pay almost nothing in income taxes. (those under 45k)

15 % of your income for the federal, and anywhere between 5 to 16 % depending on which province you live in, is not almost nothing.

Sure, it might not be as much as high rollers millionaires would pay, but it affects them just as much.
 

maharg

idspispopd
Liberal aren't ruling out a hike to the GST.

It is most likely unpopular, they will get hammered by the opposition and it could stick to them to the next election. In other words, it's the exact policy that they should pursue.

Wow, that's a really misleading headline. Though the political doublespeak that enabled it is quite strong.

I’m not at this stage considering any tax issues that haven’t been already put in our campaign platform.

Means "We're not even thinking of raising the GST, but outright saying so is above my paygrade."
 

Lexxism

Member
I'll be paying more than 13% regressive tax? Damn, I'm having an orgasm just thinking about it. Those poor souls in NS and QC.

Also, 2016 onward is looking good especially with a falling loonie. I might not have any savings left when things keep on increasing.
 

Mr.Mike

Member
just increase sin taxes instead of the GST. tax more tabbaccoo, alcooohohol, gasoline.

Gambling should be also taxed too, tax lotto winnings

Sin taxes are weird to me. You're taxing things you want to discourage but then if your successful you end up losing revenue.
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
they already pay almost nothing in income taxes. (those under 45k)

The poorer people are the more sales taxes impact them, so cut them some slack already.

And anyone who has a low paying job has a job SOMEONE HAS TO DO. So don't blame them for making so little, someone has to do that job. Blame the ones not paying them more!

Heck, people who make less than 45k shouldn't even pay any tax other than those used to reduce inefficiencies (tobacco, alcohol, fuel(when alternatives are available), etc).
 

Boogie

Member
Just to clarify what's going on here

UIgZrfi.png

LMAO


aaaand of course he goes back to completely ignoring your next post.
 

Azih

Member
I didn't ignore it, I laughed because it was one of the funniest relies on this board.

The PKP chart is the best chart

But you do understand the difference now right? You'll never get less money because of entering a new tax bracket because the new rate is only on the margin.
 

Tabris

Member
Can we talk about how awesome Trudeau is?

Here are some quick examples:

Singing Jingle Bells for Subban's charity / challenge:

https://twitter.com/JustinTrudeau/status/677975679997112320

Helping out charity:

https://twitter.com/JustinTrudeau/status/677952696633036800

Watching The Force Awakens with hospital:

https://twitter.com/JustinTrudeau/status/676961853046693888

Plus the whole handing out coats and welcoming new refugees.

He's not running, he's won and all of the work he does now won't have much impact on next election as it's too far away. So this is just him being him, an awesome human being.

Compare this to other leaders.
 
Can we talk about how awesome Trudeau is?

Here are some quick examples:

Singing Jingle Bells for Subban's charity / challenge:

https://twitter.com/JustinTrudeau/status/677975679997112320

Helping out charity:

https://twitter.com/JustinTrudeau/status/677952696633036800

Watching The Force Awakens with hospital:

https://twitter.com/JustinTrudeau/status/676961853046693888

Plus the whole handing out coats and welcoming new refugees.

He's not running, he's won and all of the work he does now won't have much impact on next election as it's too far away. So this is just him being him, an awesome human being.

Compare this to other leaders.
The cynic in me is saying these are all publicity stunts to make us forget how in the shit our economy is. Yeah he is a good enough dude but hopefully after the holidays are over we see less of these photo ops and more of him wreckin shit up in parliament and fixing the Harper mess.
 

Silexx

Member
The cynic in me is saying these are all publicity stunts to make us forget how in the shit our economy is. Yeah he is a good enough dude but hopefully after the holidays are over we see less of these photo ops and more of him wreckin shit up in parliament and fixing the Harper mess.

If it is a stunt to distract from the economy, then he's doing to absolute right thing. A government has little to no impact on the performance of the economy, especially one just 6 weeks into office. However, perception and confidence is an important factor. Thus, Trudeau doing what he can to keep spirits and confidence up, especially in the holiday season, can help spur consumers to spend more rather than save during the most important retail period of the year.
 

maharg

idspispopd
Love it. Either he's totally sincere, in which case look what a great guy he is, or it's a cynical stunt and look what a great guy he is for doing it. (Never mind the logic twister of governments having no impact on the economy except that they can make people buy things and help the economy)

I mean, I have little doubt it's sincere personally, but I'm far more interested in what he does over the next four years to earn the left wing votes he pulled than nice PR moments. He can't console every refugee child who comes in on the steps of parliament or whatever, but he is in a position to make real positive structural changes that will help everyone and that is far far more important.
 

Silexx

Member
Love it. Either he's totally sincere, in which case look what a great guy he is, or it's a cynical stunt and look what a great guy he is for doing it. (Never mind the logic twister of governments having no impact on the economy except that they can make people buy things and help the economy)

I mean, I have little doubt it's sincere personally, but I'm far more interested in what he does over the next four years to earn the left wing votes he pulled than nice PR moments. He can't console every refugee child who comes in on the steps of parliament or whatever, but he is in a position to make real positive structural changes that will help everyone and that is far far more important.

I think you misread what I was getting at. Governments don't drive economies. The current economic downturn has no bearing on what the government (current or previous) is doing/has done. My only assertion was that consumer confidence is an actual thing and Trudeau doing 'publicity stunts to distract from the economy' can be seen as an at least an attempt to spur some economic activity rather than a cynical ploy.

But all in all, I think he's doing it just because he's earnest that way.
 

firehawk12

Subete no aware
Well, they can directly effect the economy in that they can instantly make thousands of new jobs if they wanted to. Or just spend in general.
 

jstripes

Banned
I think you misread what I was getting at. Governments don't drive economies. The current economic downturn has no bearing on what the government (current or previous) is doing/has done.

They certainly make decisions that directly influence economies.

Taxes, interest rates, choosing which sectors to subsidize and invest in, regulations, infrastructure, etc.
 
I thought people generally liked Horwath? I do.

There's lots of people I like whom I'd never put within a mile of leadership. The problem with the NDP and the PC's in Ontario is that they're so no being the Liberals they're spending no time coming up with actual policy ideas of their own.


Title made that seem like a pitch, when really it's just the finance minister telling a reporter that you've been able to donate money to help pay down the deficit since the Harris days.
 

Azih

Member
There's lots of people I like whom I'd never put within a mile of leadership. The problem with the NDP and the PC's in Ontario is that they're so no being the Liberals they're spending no time coming up with actual policy ideas of their own.
Oh come on. Both the PCs and the NDP have websites full of policy ideas of their own.
 
I thought people generally liked Horwath? I do.

The Liberals were in a minority government and the NDP finally had a say, and what does Horwath do? Force an election she couldn't ever win. The only party that stood to benefit from that idiotic move were the PCs. Thankfully Hudak tanked. I'll never vote for a Horwath-led NDP after that.
 
Oh come on. Both the PCs and the NDP have websites full of policy ideas of their own.

Maybe they do. Maybe they should start talking about them. I pay attention to politics in this country and I couldn't tell you a single platform from the NDP from the last election, an the only one I remember from the PCs was to cut 100,000 jobs, which would somehow create a million.

Instead of talking about what they would do, all you hear about is a gas plant they all would have cancelled anyways. It's the Ontario version of Benghazi.

The Liberals were in a minority government and the NDP finally had a say, and what does Horwath do? Force an election she couldn't ever win. The only party that stood to benefit from that idiotic move were the PCs. Thankfully Hudak tanked. I'll never vote for a Horwath-led NDP after that.

Cutting off your nose to spite your face is an NDP past-time.
 

Azih

Member
The Liberals were in a minority government and the NDP finally had a say, and what does Horwath do? Force an election she couldn't ever win.
We've talked about this before but the gas plant scandal was insane at the time. The only way Horwath could have kept that stink off of her was by not supporting the Liberals at the time. Criminal charges can't be ignored.

Maybe they do. Maybe they should start talking about them. I pay attention to politics in this country and I couldn't tell you a single platform from the NDP from the last election, an the only one I remember from the PCs was to cut 100,000 jobs, which would somehow create a million.
That's really more of a problem with news media in this country rather than anything to do with the parties themselves. By the midway part of any campaign all the parties release all their policy points widely. That they aren't discussed or analyzed deeply by pundits is on the pundits.
 
We've talked about this before but the gas plant scandal was insane at the time. The only way Horwath could have kept that stink off of her was by not supporting the Liberals at the time. Criminal charges can't be ignored.

I don't think you can draw any conclusion from the results that isn't "Horwath greatly overestimated how angry the public was"

That's really more of a problem with news media in this country rather than anything to do with the parties themselves. By the midway part of any campaign all the parties release all their policy points widely. That they aren't discussed or analyzed deeply by pundits is on the pundits.

The pundits talk about what the candidates are talking about, which was "GAS PLANT! GAS PLANT! GAS PLANT!"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom