It turns out that more average Canadians would see a reduction in their taxes under the NDP than under the Conservatives.
http://dawn.thot.net/election2004/issues71.htm
http://dawn.thot.net/election2004/issues71.htm
The Truth About Taxes
- Thread starter Derry McKinney
- Start date
Derry McKinney said:
Okay lets take a look.
1. The report was dated June 22, 2004, last year. Out of date in late May, 2005.
2. Accoring to Stats Can, the average Canadian wage is $39,000. Using averages, which this study does, the average family with two incomes is then $78,000. Therefore, the conservative programs gives 88% of the tax break to the average family of two working people.
3. The report states that 32% of 64% of Candian families with incomes uner $30,000 receive less than 1%. What it doesn't state is that family income under $30,000 pays little to no income tax, so obviously the percentage will be lower for this group. The study also does not calculate things like the GST credit program to smaller income families, nor does it take into consideration the child tax credit for lower income families with children. Both these credits are on a sliding income scale, thus assisting the lower income families..
4. Assuming most family income is income earned by a man and a woman, the conservative approach will result in an average family decrease in taxes of $760.00. The NDP proposal shows a decrease average of $794 - $803, according to this study. Virtually no difference.
5. Families with family income over $150,000 will be asked to pay $1752 more per year. The NDP obviously does not want these votes.
6. This study does not really compare apples to apples all the time. There is no indication of gender decreases in the NDP proposal, and in one case percentages are being used, while in the other case, actual numbers are being used. This is not a valid comparison.
For instance, if a lower income family with no tax does not receive a tax break, then that family is out of the study. This makes my point in Point #3 above. The smaller amount of tax paid automatically reduces the percentage amount that is reduced. 10% of $500 is $50, 10% of $50 is $5. Both receive 10% reductions, but the amounts are vastly different.
Let's take a real look. Your party would give tax cuts to the rich and to corporations. The NDP would give them to real people who really work for a living.
Your party would cut social spending to the bone to be able to afford to give cuts to rich people and corporations.
I've read several of your posts where you claim that all the NDP do is tax and spend. You've now been shown to be wrong. What the NDP do, in fact, is to look after the people...not the corporations.
Stutter away Blue Boy, most of the people here aren't rich.
Your party would cut social spending to the bone to be able to afford to give cuts to rich people and corporations.
I've read several of your posts where you claim that all the NDP do is tax and spend. You've now been shown to be wrong. What the NDP do, in fact, is to look after the people...not the corporations.
Stutter away Blue Boy, most of the people here aren't rich.
Re: RE: The Truth About Taxes
You know, you posted the article, I used the facts in it to dispute your thread title, and you have no answer. The stats speak for themselves. Not my fault you can't figure it out. And you have absolutely no proof the conservatives would "cut social spending to the bone", it is simply a case of more left wing lies, unfounded allegations, and fearmongering. But then, hey, go with your strengths. :twisted:
Derry McKinney said:
You know, you posted the article, I used the facts in it to dispute your thread title, and you have no answer. The stats speak for themselves. Not my fault you can't figure it out. And you have absolutely no proof the conservatives would "cut social spending to the bone", it is simply a case of more left wing lies, unfounded allegations, and fearmongering. But then, hey, go with your strengths. :twisted:
No, you tried to twist the facts. You're what? Maybe a middle manager with some company that makes you wear a tie every day? The article was written by a journalist. It was based on a report by two accountants.
So you got out a copy of whatever the CPC gave you a year ago and, assuming you have any ambition at all, paraphrased it.
The thing is that in your paraphrasing, you missed the important point...the NDP would give money back to working people and your party would give it to the rich and the corporations. The rich and the corporations send their money off-shore instead of investing it in Canada, so you are advocating shipping Canadian money off-shore.
So you got out a copy of whatever the CPC gave you a year ago and, assuming you have any ambition at all, paraphrased it.
The thing is that in your paraphrasing, you missed the important point...the NDP would give money back to working people and your party would give it to the rich and the corporations. The rich and the corporations send their money off-shore instead of investing it in Canada, so you are advocating shipping Canadian money off-shore.
Re: RE: The Truth About Taxes
Not only are you wrong, you have no idea what you are talking about. I don't where ties, and a report by two accountants with NDP leanings is far from unbiased, and we all know that journalists are unbiased, right?
I have no ida what you mean about a copy of something from the CPC (?) as all my comments were based on actual tax facts and the figures in the article you posted.
Check my response again, according to the article you posted, the conservatives would give tax breaks to 88% of families with average family income in Canada
I didn't make the figures up, you provided them. Thanks for showing the hidden agenda, tax breaks for 88% of the average family in Canada.
Your offshore comment is simply a diversionary tactic to deflect the fact that you have no answer to what I posted, and has nothing to do with this post. I shouldn't have to point out that your leader is in bed with the head of a company that does not pay Canadian tax because why? His company operates under an offshore flag which makes his tax company tax exempt. Yeah, Smilin Jack is such a Canadian. What hypocrites his party and supporters are.
And the date is on your article, maybe you should read the heading first :twisted:
Derry McKinney said:
Not only are you wrong, you have no idea what you are talking about. I don't where ties, and a report by two accountants with NDP leanings is far from unbiased, and we all know that journalists are unbiased, right?
I have no ida what you mean about a copy of something from the CPC (?) as all my comments were based on actual tax facts and the figures in the article you posted.
Check my response again, according to the article you posted, the conservatives would give tax breaks to 88% of families with average family income in Canada
I didn't make the figures up, you provided them. Thanks for showing the hidden agenda, tax breaks for 88% of the average family in Canada.
Your offshore comment is simply a diversionary tactic to deflect the fact that you have no answer to what I posted, and has nothing to do with this post. I shouldn't have to point out that your leader is in bed with the head of a company that does not pay Canadian tax because why? His company operates under an offshore flag which makes his tax company tax exempt. Yeah, Smilin Jack is such a Canadian. What hypocrites his party and supporters are.
And the date is on your article, maybe you should read the heading first :twisted:
The reality is that you would give next to nothing to most Canadians and a huge amount to those who already have tons of money.
That's the CPC (it stands for Conservative Party of Canada, since you asked) plan. It's the same plan that has been such a dismal failure in the USA, just prettied up and painted blue for the Canadian market. Check out how great their tax cuts have worked out. They are bankrupt and rich people are paying nothing.
That's the CPC (it stands for Conservative Party of Canada, since you asked) plan. It's the same plan that has been such a dismal failure in the USA, just prettied up and painted blue for the Canadian market. Check out how great their tax cuts have worked out. They are bankrupt and rich people are paying nothing.
Re: RE: The Truth About Taxes
Geez you are dense, don't let the facts get in the way of your fantasies. Read your own article. The reality, based on the article you posted, is that 88% of families with average family income in Canada would benefit from the conservative proposal quoted in your article.
I know what CPC stands for, I was wondering what the hell you were talking about when you mentioned some talking points, or whatever. :twisted:
Derry McKinney said:
Geez you are dense, don't let the facts get in the way of your fantasies. Read your own article. The reality, based on the article you posted, is that 88% of families with average family income in Canada would benefit from the conservative proposal quoted in your article.
I know what CPC stands for, I was wondering what the hell you were talking about when you mentioned some talking points, or whatever. :twisted:
You are ignoring the fact that a family no longer consists of Ward and June and June's tired little Beaver. 88% of families do not consist of a dominant man, a pregnant and barefoot wife, and a spoiled child.
Re: RE: The Truth About Taxes
No where did I say that, and for you to insinuate that is a lie.
Family income is usually comprised of two incomes, and with the average income in Canada at $39,000, the average family income is therefore $78,000. Your study uses averages, so to remain consistent with your article, so did I.
Derry McKinney said:
No where did I say that, and for you to insinuate that is a lie.
Family income is usually comprised of two incomes, and with the average income in Canada at $39,000, the average family income is therefore $78,000. Your study uses averages, so to remain consistent with your article, so did I.
The average household income isn't $78,000 though. You are ignoring the fact that there are far more people on the lower end of the wage scale than on the higher end. A disproportionate number of those on the low end of the scale are single women with children. That's one of the big reasons why this country has a child poverty problem.
You are making an invalid assumption to serve your own purposes. It's an assumption that has kids eating KD and bologna instead of healthy food.
You are making an invalid assumption to serve your own purposes. It's an assumption that has kids eating KD and bologna instead of healthy food.
Re: RE: The Truth About Taxes
Look, I'm not going to keep going over this again, If you don't like the figures and posts you provide, maybe you should be a little more careful.
Your point about single parent families is valid, but so is mine when I said your post does not take into consideration the Child Tax Credit, the GST credits, subsidized daycare, subsidized health care (at least in Alberta) and subsidized housing for lower income families. All these things must be taken into consideration when discussing this issue, and your post did not. Therefore, it is impossible to justify it's conclusions.
Derry McKinney said:
Look, I'm not going to keep going over this again, If you don't like the figures and posts you provide, maybe you should be a little more careful.
Your point about single parent families is valid, but so is mine when I said your post does not take into consideration the Child Tax Credit, the GST credits, subsidized daycare, subsidized health care (at least in Alberta) and subsidized housing for lower income families. All these things must be taken into consideration when discussing this issue, and your post did not. Therefore, it is impossible to justify it's conclusions.
Not everybody gets those credits, Blue. Not that it matters. The fact is that you want to make the poor pay as much as the rich. If you can't make them pay by taxes, you'll just cut the taxes until there's no money for the programs they depend on.
Do you know what poverty means, Blue? I don't mean the flat-broke, can't afford food kind of poverty, although we have plenty of that, but just being working-class poor.
It means your kids don't have a computer, don't have the internet, don't have cable TV, can't participate in organised sports, get new clothes when school starts and maybe at Christmas, and get books used or from the library because you sure can't afford new ones.
Now who the hell would rather see get a tax break, somebody who has all that stuff or somebody who might be able to use it to buy her kids a used computer?
I already know what your answer is. It's the same answer that's been pounding the hell out of working people for years.
Do you know what poverty means, Blue? I don't mean the flat-broke, can't afford food kind of poverty, although we have plenty of that, but just being working-class poor.
It means your kids don't have a computer, don't have the internet, don't have cable TV, can't participate in organised sports, get new clothes when school starts and maybe at Christmas, and get books used or from the library because you sure can't afford new ones.
Now who the hell would rather see get a tax break, somebody who has all that stuff or somebody who might be able to use it to buy her kids a used computer?
I already know what your answer is. It's the same answer that's been pounding the hell out of working people for years.
Re: RE: The Truth About Taxes
FYI, to answer your question, yes, I know very well what it means to be broke. I also know from that experience what sort of support programs are out there too, so unless you have been there, I suggest you keep your mouth shut.
It was also that experience that showed me that personal initiative was the way that I was going to get back to where I had been, and it worked.
Your accusations in your first paragraph are just plain stupid. That is not at all how I think, and my posts on here have been very clear as your alter ego knows. I support fiscally responsible social programs, not the willy nilly lets just throw money at a problem approach we take now. Throwing money just makes the throwers feel good, but at the end of the day does nothing to resolve the problem. Even you have to agree with that, given that our social spending has increased dramatically, yet we still have the problems you complain about. Ergo, throwing money unaccountably at programs is not the answer.
Derry McKinney said:
FYI, to answer your question, yes, I know very well what it means to be broke. I also know from that experience what sort of support programs are out there too, so unless you have been there, I suggest you keep your mouth shut.
It was also that experience that showed me that personal initiative was the way that I was going to get back to where I had been, and it worked.
Your accusations in your first paragraph are just plain stupid. That is not at all how I think, and my posts on here have been very clear as your alter ego knows. I support fiscally responsible social programs, not the willy nilly lets just throw money at a problem approach we take now. Throwing money just makes the throwers feel good, but at the end of the day does nothing to resolve the problem. Even you have to agree with that, given that our social spending has increased dramatically, yet we still have the problems you complain about. Ergo, throwing money unaccountably at programs is not the answer.
Twila said:
He won't accept that, Twila. His response is to twist the numbers, then insist they say something other than they really say. It's that old conservative act of turning things backwards, then blaming the less fortunate.
Giving people a chance to better themselves becomes, "throwing money at the problem." It's the same as when he claims that Alberta should have more say because they have more money. The fundamental problem is that he has no understanding of democracy.
Derry McKinney said:
Whatever. The average income per person in Canada is $39K. With two workers in a family, family income average is $78K. Tax rates for families with income under $30K is minimal to zero, so there is very little, if anything to cut. If you are not paying tax, you can't get a tax cut.
Your premise about Alberta is laughable, and stupid. I have been clear, I am not against social programs, but I am against what I and many others perceive to be fiscally irresponsible social programs. Again, why do middle class need the CTC? Don't cut the program, give more to those who need it. Surely you would not disagree with that? That is an example of what I mean by fiscally responsible social programs.
And why does the NDP proposal discriminate against men? The article says that mens tax would increase, while womens would decrease. I thought the NDP stood for non discrimination.
I do thank you for the article, though, it does make a lot valid points that the NDP really has no idea what they are talking about.