#1Apr 7th, 2009
Alternate taxation system: you choose
| View Poll Results: Which would you choose if you could? | |||
| Higher taxes, but all charity-deductible. |
   
|
1 | 20.00% |
| Lower taxes, but not deductible. |
  
|
4 | 80.00% |
| Voters: 5. You may not vote on this poll | |||
No Party Affiliation
#2
Re: Alternate taxation system: you choose
Apr 8th, 2009
I'd choose something completely different from the two options you offered. Something that makes sense, with people on the help phone lines who actually know something. I discovered today that I've been seriously misled by people at the Canada Revenue Agency's Helpless Desk. Our daughter is doing graduate studies at a foreign university, and I was told that her tuition fees and any expenses we pay for her are deductible only if she's in Canada. Turns out that's not true according to the paper tax guide I picked up at the post office today. Her tuition was $10K and we're paying her rent, $600 a month, but because I was told a year ago, before she left, that these were not deductible, I don't have and can't get the documentation to make the claims in time for the April 30th deadline. I can get it eventually and submit it and ask for a revision later, we can go back 10 years for revisions, but what a hassle. And in the meantime CRA has had the use of my money and her money and won't give us any useful amount of interest for the privilege when they eventually give it back to us.
I am completely convinced that CRA's attitude is that every penny you make belongs to them except what you can prove is yours, according to rules they get to make up, and they will not make any effort to make sure you've claimed all the deductions you're entitled to. They want it all.
Imagine the simplest possible tax form from CRA. Two lines:
1. How much did you make last year?
2. Send it in.
I hate them.
I am completely convinced that CRA's attitude is that every penny you make belongs to them except what you can prove is yours, according to rules they get to make up, and they will not make any effort to make sure you've claimed all the deductions you're entitled to. They want it all.
Imagine the simplest possible tax form from CRA. Two lines:
1. How much did you make last year?
2. Send it in.
I hate them.
#3
Re: Alternate taxation system: you choose
Apr 8th, 2009
I cold certainly agree with simpler tax rules. instead of having a 1001 low taxes, needing afriggin team of laywers and accountants to figure them out, we need a simple one, 2, 3 taxes at most. Let's say a flat personal income tax, a flat personal wealth tax, and a resource tax. We can up the tax if necessary, not not add another tax.
In a democratic system, the system must be understandable to all without a friggin degree. Once it get more complicated than that, it's not democratic anymore. Democracy requires understanidng as well as participation. If the system is too complicated to follow, we shoud just be allowed to ignore it. It's the politicians job to make it straightforward.
In a democratic system, the system must be understandable to all without a friggin degree. Once it get more complicated than that, it's not democratic anymore. Democracy requires understanidng as well as participation. If the system is too complicated to follow, we shoud just be allowed to ignore it. It's the politicians job to make it straightforward.
Free Thinker
#4
Re: Alternate taxation system: you choose
Apr 8th, 2009
I actually like a regressive idea on taxes: no income tax whatsoever. I think luxuries should be taxed at a rate as necessary to maintain the related infrastructure. I do not own a vehicle, why should I pay taxes for road upkeep except what is necessary for the transportation of goods?
The major problem is the first thing I said, its regressive. Poorly implemented, it would impact those with the least incomes the most, and its an all or nothing idea: if one country sat out, people with money would buy from there.
The major problem is the first thing I said, its regressive. Poorly implemented, it would impact those with the least incomes the most, and its an all or nothing idea: if one country sat out, people with money would buy from there.
#5
Re: Alternate taxation system: you choose
Apr 8th, 2009Quote: Originally Posted by Niflmir
A resource tax would have some of the benefits you describe. The more gas or lumber you consume, the more tax you pay. So that money could go to infrastructure.I actually like a regressive idea on taxes: no income tax whatsoever. I think luxuries should be taxed at a rate as necessary to maintain the related infrastructure. I do not own a vehicle, why should I pay taxes for road upkeep except what is necessary for the transportation of goods?
The major problem is the first thing I said, its regressive. Poorly implemented, it would impact those with the least incomes the most, and its an all or nothing idea: if one country sat out, people with money would buy from there.
But as far as direct taxes are concerned (i.e. personal income and wealth taxes), they should be charity deductible, 100%.
#6
Re: Alternate taxation system: you choose
Apr 8th, 2009
What bugs me is those wealthy enough seem to have more tax break options open to them. Makes me laugh when during an election campaign they say they gave out so many millions in tax break that on an average house hold it comes out to a few measly dollars a week......(insert sarcasm )
I think we should seriously look at what is important to have to pay taxes for. Keep that to a possible minimum. i doubt very much there's much of an alternative tho. More effort on useless spending, that should be enough right there.
I think we should seriously look at what is important to have to pay taxes for. Keep that to a possible minimum. i doubt very much there's much of an alternative tho. More effort on useless spending, that should be enough right there.
No Party Affiliation
#7
Re: Alternate taxation system: you choose
Apr 8th, 2009Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo
Sounds almost like a "shift" to tax what we burn, instead of what we earn..... A resource tax would have some of the benefits you describe. The more gas or lumber you consume, the more tax you pay. So that money could go to infrastructure.
#8
Re: Alternate taxation system: you choose
Apr 8th, 2009
The only tax should be a consumption tax; you buy something you pay tax on it.
#9
Re: Alternate taxation system: you choose
Apr 8th, 2009Quote: Originally Posted by Walter
Thats a way to go, but...The only tax should be a consumption tax; you buy something you pay tax on it.
if so then the government should push for more personal wealth in stead of corporate wealth.
The flip side of it is ....the more you consume the harder it is on the enviroment.
Conservative
#10
Re: Alternate taxation system: you choose
Apr 8th, 2009
The present system was and still is being written by people (and I use the term loosely) for whom there is a very special place is reserved in Hell, somewhere below mass murderers and pedophiles.
In my opinion a resonable (so that one would not need to be an accountant) and compassionate (so that even the poorest people would not be hurt by it) combination of consumption tax and a fixed rate income tax is the best solution.
In my opinion a resonable (so that one would not need to be an accountant) and compassionate (so that even the poorest people would not be hurt by it) combination of consumption tax and a fixed rate income tax is the best solution.
#11
Re: Alternate taxation system: you choose
Apr 8th, 2009
I had an Idea 12 , 13 years ago. Basically it was that your wages were taxed on 35 to 40 hours worked per week, anything over that was untouchable. This would give the option in some case to pull your self out of debt or spend it on something planned . In any event it mean more money to spend or invest. Money spent creates jobs. This could relieve the government on social programs and take that money to health and education.
Bloc Québécois
#12
Re: Alternate taxation system: you choose
Apr 8th, 2009Quote: Originally Posted by Niflmir
It's called a consumption tax.. The more you consume, the more you pay in total dollars. The luxury items you refer too get hit with top tax %'s, while the basics are taxed lower. The only problem is in the cost of staples (milk/bread) that end up costing amounts that would be considered criminal in our society (ie current prices).I actually like a regressive idea on taxes: no income tax whatsoever. I think luxuries should be taxed at a rate as necessary to maintain the related infrastructure. I do not own a vehicle, why should I pay taxes for road upkeep except what is necessary for the transportation of goods?
Quote: Originally Posted by Niflmir
I'll argue that the overall benefits will outweigh the pitfalls you identified. More wealth in that system leads to more opportunities being financed (which requires a large employee base). Wages reflect the high cost of living (although this is offset by the non-existant or low income tax rate) and more often than not, the low-end of the spectrum in terms of income receive assistance to deal with the inflated costs of goods.The major problem is the first thing I said, its regressive. Poorly implemented, it would impact those with the least incomes the most, and its an all or nothing idea: if one country sat out, people with money would buy from there.
In teh end, the above system is the most fair and allows for greater opportunity to accumulate wealth in the entire spectrum of income levels.
#13
Re: Alternate taxation system: you choose
Apr 8th, 2009Quote: Originally Posted by Walter
Random consumption tax? Should we who eat healthy pay as much tax as we who drink, smoke, and load up our arteries with cholesterol?The only tax should be a consumption tax; you buy something you pay tax on it.
If we have a public health system, I think our eating habits should be reflected in our tax contribution.
So while I could agree with a tax on resources (to preserve resources) or harmful substances like cigarettes, alcohol, etc, I don't agree with a simple sweeping consumption tax. If we're going to tax, let's make it strategic and goal-oriented.
Having said that, I still think we should keep the tax simple. In other words, not one tax for petrol a separate one for lumber, yet another for cigarettes, and another still for alcohol, etc.
Let's just have one tax with a simple yet clearly defined application. For example, 'natural resource'would be sweeping enough yet clearly understood as to its application. 'undesirable products' might be less clear owing to a wider range of definitions. For example, would a high-cholesterol T-bone steak be taxed or not. Depends on how strict we'd want to be in our definition here.
But certainly not an ill-thought out sweeping consumption tax with no clear objective.
#14
Re: Alternate taxation system: you choose
Apr 8th, 2009
Another thing is that I don't think wealth redistribution must necessarily be done through government bureaucracy. To take an example, let's say we scrapped corporate taxes altogether and replaced them instead with voting rights for all workers for the Board of directores, with workers being allowed to vote for workers too. For one thing, it would make labour unions redundant. Two, it would encourage movement towards workers' co-ops, and this would help transfer more ealth from the company to the workers without hainv to filter money through inefficient government bureaucracy.
Another way to make taxes effective yet simple would be, instead of having 1001 laws trying to regulate every circumstance, why not have strategically targetted laws can can kill many birds with one stone? To take an example, instead of all kinds of complicated tax brackets, and exemptions for this, that, kids, this, that and this tand that again, requiring a degree in accounting to figure it out, we could just have maybe four simple taxes:
1. Personal income tax of let's say 2 or 3 percent of income, deductible through charitable donations earmarked to help the poor. This just to make sure everyone makes at least a small contribution to society.
2. 5% or 6% Tax on personal accumulated non-essential wealth. Obviously, people with large families, disabilities, low salaries, etc., would find it harder to accumulate wealth in the first place, not to mention that they could also declare more of their wealth to be essential, compared with couples without children, healthy, lucky in life, etc. This would thus naturally make the wealthy or lucky, either way, pay more taxes than the others, without needing a complicated system of various tax brackets, exemptions for this, for that, and the other thing. One simple tax that would react naurally to all of these circumstances. And like the income tax, could be 100% tax deductible through charitable contributions.
3. A resource and undesirable consumption tax. 10% let's say. This would naturlaly push the cost of resource-inefficient goods and services up, while having less impact on resource-efficient goods and services, thus giving us an incentive to produce and buy green. This could also be a sure source of income for the government since it would not be tax-deductible unlike the direct taxes above.
4. An essential wealth cap. Any accumulated non-esential wealth above a predetermined amount would be taken by the government. People could avoid this by either spending their money, investing it in their businesses (essential wealth), or giving it to charity. Their choice. So the rich would have more responsibility to society, but would still have more say in how their money is spent. If they spend it, it creates jobs. If they invest it, their workers have more say in it through voting rights, and so the company can be more socially responsible, ensuring the money is used to benefit society through good business practices. If they give it to charity, a social benefit. And if they do nothing, the government takes it. But at least they have much say in how their money will go to help society.
5. Last source, fines obviously.
This would stil provide society with the funds needed, while still keeping taxes simple and straightforward, and still give people more say in how their tax-money is spent.
Another way to make taxes effective yet simple would be, instead of having 1001 laws trying to regulate every circumstance, why not have strategically targetted laws can can kill many birds with one stone? To take an example, instead of all kinds of complicated tax brackets, and exemptions for this, that, kids, this, that and this tand that again, requiring a degree in accounting to figure it out, we could just have maybe four simple taxes:
1. Personal income tax of let's say 2 or 3 percent of income, deductible through charitable donations earmarked to help the poor. This just to make sure everyone makes at least a small contribution to society.
2. 5% or 6% Tax on personal accumulated non-essential wealth. Obviously, people with large families, disabilities, low salaries, etc., would find it harder to accumulate wealth in the first place, not to mention that they could also declare more of their wealth to be essential, compared with couples without children, healthy, lucky in life, etc. This would thus naturally make the wealthy or lucky, either way, pay more taxes than the others, without needing a complicated system of various tax brackets, exemptions for this, for that, and the other thing. One simple tax that would react naurally to all of these circumstances. And like the income tax, could be 100% tax deductible through charitable contributions.
3. A resource and undesirable consumption tax. 10% let's say. This would naturlaly push the cost of resource-inefficient goods and services up, while having less impact on resource-efficient goods and services, thus giving us an incentive to produce and buy green. This could also be a sure source of income for the government since it would not be tax-deductible unlike the direct taxes above.
4. An essential wealth cap. Any accumulated non-esential wealth above a predetermined amount would be taken by the government. People could avoid this by either spending their money, investing it in their businesses (essential wealth), or giving it to charity. Their choice. So the rich would have more responsibility to society, but would still have more say in how their money is spent. If they spend it, it creates jobs. If they invest it, their workers have more say in it through voting rights, and so the company can be more socially responsible, ensuring the money is used to benefit society through good business practices. If they give it to charity, a social benefit. And if they do nothing, the government takes it. But at least they have much say in how their money will go to help society.
5. Last source, fines obviously.
This would stil provide society with the funds needed, while still keeping taxes simple and straightforward, and still give people more say in how their tax-money is spent.
No Party Affiliation
#15
Re: Alternate taxation system: you choose
Apr 8th, 2009
You guys are forgetting one important aspect of our current tax system. It is largely a job creation project for bureaucrats (who would other wise be on welfare), accountants and lawyers who would have very little to do if the government and its employees were not so busy trying to steal from the taxpayers.
#16
Re: Alternate taxation system: you choose
Apr 8th, 2009Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave
I could agree to that. That's why I tend to prefer a system whereby we have laws that encourage redistribution of wealth, but not through the government.You guys are forgetting one important aspect of our current tax system. It is largely a job creation project for bureaucrats (who would other wise be on welfare), accountants and lawyers who would have very little to do if the government and its employees were not so busy trying to steal from the taxpayers.
If we wre simply required to give to charities, or if companies were required to give workers voting rights, or if we wre required to give a %age of our income to a school of our choice, etc., this woud help the poor, it would build infrastructrue, etc., but not by having money go through the government. As for money going through the government, it shoud be minimal.
There are ways for the government to restructure the economic laws to ensure that money flows from rich to poor, but not necessarily through thegovernment. In other words, the government could tell John to give some money to Joe rather than take the money from John (possibly or likely skim some off the top), and give some crumbs to Joe.
No Party Affiliation
#17
Re: Alternate taxation system: you choose
Apr 8th, 2009
Cannot answer the poll as your choices are too limited.
Here in the States the problem with the tax system is that it allows sheltering of income sources and assets for the wealthy while imposing an unfair burden on the middle class. Suggested reforms:
/ Eliminate tax overseas tax shelters and other shields.
/ Eliminate tax exempt status of churches - or, limit their tax exclusion to religious activities, only. Any financial gains attributable to business will be taxed at ordinary rates.
/ Recapture of uninvested subsidies.
/ Eliminate corporate tax loopholes.
/ Windfalls from ownership of foreign businesses to be taxed.
/ Extend statute of limitations for corporate or other tax frauds from 6 to 15 years or possibly longer.
I uphold our Founders ideals in restricting taxes to commercial rather than direct taxes. However, since the politicians have created so many deficits, I would hold off any further reform until their deficits are fully paid for. Note that I would not increase taxes for the middle and working classes as we are not at fault for the economic mess and unfair tax system we have today.
Here in the States the problem with the tax system is that it allows sheltering of income sources and assets for the wealthy while imposing an unfair burden on the middle class. Suggested reforms:
/ Eliminate tax overseas tax shelters and other shields.
/ Eliminate tax exempt status of churches - or, limit their tax exclusion to religious activities, only. Any financial gains attributable to business will be taxed at ordinary rates.
/ Recapture of uninvested subsidies.
/ Eliminate corporate tax loopholes.
/ Windfalls from ownership of foreign businesses to be taxed.
/ Extend statute of limitations for corporate or other tax frauds from 6 to 15 years or possibly longer.
I uphold our Founders ideals in restricting taxes to commercial rather than direct taxes. However, since the politicians have created so many deficits, I would hold off any further reform until their deficits are fully paid for. Note that I would not increase taxes for the middle and working classes as we are not at fault for the economic mess and unfair tax system we have today.
#18
Re: Alternate taxation system: you choose
Apr 8th, 2009
/ Eliminate tax overseas tax shelters and other shields.
Could agree to that depending on how it is defined. For example, would investment in your business be considered a tax shelter? I'd say seeing that investments are things you might rely on later, they shouldn't be taxed until they are taken out of their investment status. Though i could see businesses giving workers voting rights in the board of directors to ensure that they have more say in how the company is run. This would still help to redistribute wealth between companies and workers but not necessarily through government bureaucracy.
/ Eliminate tax exempt status of churches - or, limit their tax exclusion to religious activities, only. Any financial gains attributable to business will be taxed at ordinary rates.
Depends on what they do with the money. Much of their money also goes to charitable causes, so it would be like taxing that money twice, once on personal incomes of contributors, and again upon receipt by the church.
Any business dealings are a different matter obviously. But then they shouldn't be getting involved in business.
/ Recapture of uninvested subsidies.
fair enough.
/ Eliminate corporate tax loopholes.
If we give workers voting rights on boards of directors, then we wouldn't need to tax businesses at all. Workers woud receive higher salaries and their income would be taxed anyway. So essentially, it woud still be paying taxes, but indirectly through its workers' salaries.
/ Windfalls from ownership of foreign businesses to be taxed.
isn't there a risk then that it be taxed twice? Each country should tax any income or wealth received within its borbers, not without. I disagree with extraterritoriality sinse it means two jurisdictions overlapping which inevitably leads to confusion and sometimes hainving to pay twice as much in taxes as others.
/ Extend statute of limitations for corporate or other tax frauds from 6 to 15 years or possibly longer.
As mentioned above, I don't even see why we'd eed to tax corporations at all if we could just give workers more voting rights within the companies, with workers' salaries being taxed. Otherwise, they're paying the tax twice, once directly and then again to compensate workers who want higher salaries to compensate for their own income taxes.
I uphold our Founders ideals in restricting taxes to commercial rather than direct taxes. However, since the politicians have created so many deficits, I would hold off any further reform until their deficits are fully paid for. Note that I would not increase taxes for the middle and working classes as we are not at fault for the economic mess and unfair tax system we have today.[/quote]
Well, I'd probaly go in reverse. Cut corporate taxes altogether but reform boards of directors to ensure more money goes to the workers. This way corporations have more flexibility in whether to give more to the workers or re-invest in themselves to create more jobs. But I would agree with paying off debts before cutting taxes.
Could agree to that depending on how it is defined. For example, would investment in your business be considered a tax shelter? I'd say seeing that investments are things you might rely on later, they shouldn't be taxed until they are taken out of their investment status. Though i could see businesses giving workers voting rights in the board of directors to ensure that they have more say in how the company is run. This would still help to redistribute wealth between companies and workers but not necessarily through government bureaucracy.
/ Eliminate tax exempt status of churches - or, limit their tax exclusion to religious activities, only. Any financial gains attributable to business will be taxed at ordinary rates.
Depends on what they do with the money. Much of their money also goes to charitable causes, so it would be like taxing that money twice, once on personal incomes of contributors, and again upon receipt by the church.
Any business dealings are a different matter obviously. But then they shouldn't be getting involved in business.
/ Recapture of uninvested subsidies.
fair enough.
/ Eliminate corporate tax loopholes.
If we give workers voting rights on boards of directors, then we wouldn't need to tax businesses at all. Workers woud receive higher salaries and their income would be taxed anyway. So essentially, it woud still be paying taxes, but indirectly through its workers' salaries.
/ Windfalls from ownership of foreign businesses to be taxed.
isn't there a risk then that it be taxed twice? Each country should tax any income or wealth received within its borbers, not without. I disagree with extraterritoriality sinse it means two jurisdictions overlapping which inevitably leads to confusion and sometimes hainving to pay twice as much in taxes as others.
/ Extend statute of limitations for corporate or other tax frauds from 6 to 15 years or possibly longer.
As mentioned above, I don't even see why we'd eed to tax corporations at all if we could just give workers more voting rights within the companies, with workers' salaries being taxed. Otherwise, they're paying the tax twice, once directly and then again to compensate workers who want higher salaries to compensate for their own income taxes.
I uphold our Founders ideals in restricting taxes to commercial rather than direct taxes. However, since the politicians have created so many deficits, I would hold off any further reform until their deficits are fully paid for. Note that I would not increase taxes for the middle and working classes as we are not at fault for the economic mess and unfair tax system we have today.[/quote]
Well, I'd probaly go in reverse. Cut corporate taxes altogether but reform boards of directors to ensure more money goes to the workers. This way corporations have more flexibility in whether to give more to the workers or re-invest in themselves to create more jobs. But I would agree with paying off debts before cutting taxes.
Bloc Québécois
#19
Re: Alternate taxation system: you choose
Apr 9th, 2009Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo
'Workers' have the identical opportunity to be the boss, all you need is to risk your own money and own neck. As far as bigger business are concerned, more often than not they are public... Buy one share and receive one vote. The board is voted-in at the AGM. Want a voice? Put your money where your mouth is.To take an example, let's say we scrapped corporate taxes altogether and replaced them instead with voting rights for all workers for the Board of directores, with workers being allowed to vote for workers too.
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo
Most of the charities I am familiar with are tax deductible. Increasing pressure on the upper/middle income earners via new taxes sees an overall reduction on their contributions in total.1. Personal income tax of let's say 2 or 3 percent of income, deductible through charitable donations earmarked to help the poor. This just to make sure everyone makes at least a small contribution to society.
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo
Exactly who will determine what 'non-essential' wealth is?.. Will the formula be based on the approved cost of living per person and anything above is taxed into oblivion?2. 5% or 6% Tax on personal accumulated non-essential wealth. Obviously, people with large families, disabilities, low salaries, etc., would find it harder to accumulate wealth in the first place, not to mention that they could also declare more of their wealth to be essential, compared with couples without children, healthy, lucky in life, etc. This would thus naturally make the wealthy or lucky, either way, pay more taxes than the others, without needing a complicated system of various tax brackets, exemptions for this, for that, and the other thing. One simple tax that would react naurally to all of these circumstances. And like the income tax, could be 100% tax deductible through charitable contributions.
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo
Tobacco, alcohol and gas are the current whipping-boys of the tax system.. Have been for years.3. A resource and undesirable consumption tax. 10% let's say. This would naturlaly push the cost of resource-inefficient goods and services up, while having less impact on resource-efficient goods and services, thus giving us an incentive to produce and buy green. This could also be a sure source of income for the government since it would not be tax-deductible unlike the direct taxes above.
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo
... Anyone with the cash will simply leave and take their money to live/work/invest/give to charities/employ and pay taxes in a jurisdiction that doesn't penalize those that do have and create the wealth.4. An essential wealth cap. Any accumulated non-esential wealth above a predetermined amount would be taken by the government.
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo
Why bother re-investing? That may lead to more profits that will be deemed non-essential and confiscated by the state... Why on Earth would someone risk their money and time to with no possible reward attached to that risk and work?People could avoid this by either spending their money, investing it in their businesses (essential wealth), or giving it to charity. Their choice. So the rich would have more responsibility to society, but would still have more say in how their money is spent. If they spend it, it creates jobs.
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo
Again, the workers have every opportunity to invest/risk their cash, make the decisions and run the business. If they invest it, their workers have more say in it through voting rights, and so the company can be more socially responsible, ensuring the money is used to benefit society through good business practices. If they give it to charity, a social benefit. And if they do nothing, the government takes it. But at least they have much say in how their money will go to help society.
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo
Define 'funds needed' as opposed to the insatiable appetite of society to consume the freebies offered by gvt to garner votes?.. The reality is that everyone wants a say in how the money is spent, provided that it offers an immediate benefit and doesn't come directly out of their pocket...
This would stil provide society with the funds needed, while still keeping taxes simple and straightforward, and still give people more say in how their tax-money is spent.
#20
Re: Alternate taxation system: you choose
Apr 9th, 2009
'Workers' have the identical opportunity to be the boss, all you need is to risk your own money and own neck. As far as bigger business are concerned, more often than not they are public... Buy one share and receive one vote. The board is voted-in at the AGM. Want a voice? Put your money where your mouth is.
Fair enough. But I still don't think companies should be taxed. Just find some other way to ensure that the company be responsive to society. It could use that tax break for safety instruction to workers, or other things to improve the working conditions, salaries, or environmental sustainability. how can a company do that if it's taxed to the hilt.
Most of the charities I am familiar with are tax deductible. Increasing pressure on the upper/middle income earners via new taxes sees an overall reduction on their contributions in total.
I can agree. That's why i'd suggested a 2 or 3% income tax. Compare that to what we have now. That would be a significant drop.
Exactly who will determine what 'non-essential' wealth is?.. Will the formula be based on the approved cost of living per person and anything above is taxed into oblivion?
Granted that might be complicated. But we could give the tax-payer the benefit of the doubt whenever there is doubt. Accommodation is necessary. If you live far from work, transport is necessary. If you're self-employed, your business is necessary. if you have no other source of retirment income, your savings for future retirement are necessary. We could be flexible on the definition here of course.
Tobacco, alcohol and gas are the current whipping-boys of the tax system.. Have been for years.
Well, if you smoke, you put an added burden on the health system. I can see only two options:
1. tax unhealthy foods, tobacco, alcohol. Or
2. (my favoured option) privatize health care. That way, veg-heads like me can get a break on our insurance premiums while you boozers, Mc-stuffers, and chimneys could pay your fair share.
... Anyone with the cash will simply leave and take their money to live/work/invest/give to charities/employ and pay taxes in a jurisdiction that doesn't penalize those that do have and create the wealth.
I had the idea of an extremely high tax ceiling. Anyone who got that rich would clearly be just a hogger anyway. Do we really want a person sho just hogs till he gets 10,000,000$ rich?
And remember, i mentioned already that this would be non-essential wealth only. If he stopped hogging the money and invested it in his company instead, then he could avoid the tax and create jobs for others. His options would be there. How much money does one really need?
Why bother re-investing? That may lead to more profits that will be deemed non-essential and confiscated by the state... Why on Earth would someone risk their money and time to with no possible reward attached to that risk and work?
All he'd have to do is keep investing the money in his company if he doesn't want it taxed. Or just spend it on cruises every year, or give more to charity, etc. Plenty of options available to those who really don't want to pay higher taxes. But just hording their money without creating any kind of job should be toerated only to a certain degree. Beyond a certain amount of accumulated non-essential wealth, it's time to give it, spend it, invest it or something for the benefit of society. We can give them options as to how they'll do that, but just hording indefinitely should not be accepted beyond a certain limit.
Again, the workers have every opportunity to invest/risk their cash, make the decisions and run the business.
I can agree to that. I was just suggeting an alternative to taxing corporations if the goal is redistribution of wealth. There are better ways to do so than through government. Perhaps my idea there was not the best, but it was just an idea I was throwing out there as an alternative to taxing corporate income as a means to redistributing wealth without the government having to get its hands on it. Certainly you might have a better idea.
Define 'funds needed' as opposed to the insatiable appetite of society to consume the freebies offered by gvt to garner votes?.. The reality is that everyone wants a say in how the money is spent, provided that it offers an immediate benefit and doesn't come directly out of their pocket...
Ihonestly see nothing wrong with our direct taxes being charity deductible There are plenty of organizations out there in need of our money and doing a great job, instead of just bloating government bureaucracy.
Fair enough. But I still don't think companies should be taxed. Just find some other way to ensure that the company be responsive to society. It could use that tax break for safety instruction to workers, or other things to improve the working conditions, salaries, or environmental sustainability. how can a company do that if it's taxed to the hilt.
Most of the charities I am familiar with are tax deductible. Increasing pressure on the upper/middle income earners via new taxes sees an overall reduction on their contributions in total.
I can agree. That's why i'd suggested a 2 or 3% income tax. Compare that to what we have now. That would be a significant drop.
Exactly who will determine what 'non-essential' wealth is?.. Will the formula be based on the approved cost of living per person and anything above is taxed into oblivion?
Granted that might be complicated. But we could give the tax-payer the benefit of the doubt whenever there is doubt. Accommodation is necessary. If you live far from work, transport is necessary. If you're self-employed, your business is necessary. if you have no other source of retirment income, your savings for future retirement are necessary. We could be flexible on the definition here of course.
Tobacco, alcohol and gas are the current whipping-boys of the tax system.. Have been for years.
Well, if you smoke, you put an added burden on the health system. I can see only two options:
1. tax unhealthy foods, tobacco, alcohol. Or
2. (my favoured option) privatize health care. That way, veg-heads like me can get a break on our insurance premiums while you boozers, Mc-stuffers, and chimneys could pay your fair share.
... Anyone with the cash will simply leave and take their money to live/work/invest/give to charities/employ and pay taxes in a jurisdiction that doesn't penalize those that do have and create the wealth.
I had the idea of an extremely high tax ceiling. Anyone who got that rich would clearly be just a hogger anyway. Do we really want a person sho just hogs till he gets 10,000,000$ rich?
And remember, i mentioned already that this would be non-essential wealth only. If he stopped hogging the money and invested it in his company instead, then he could avoid the tax and create jobs for others. His options would be there. How much money does one really need?
Why bother re-investing? That may lead to more profits that will be deemed non-essential and confiscated by the state... Why on Earth would someone risk their money and time to with no possible reward attached to that risk and work?
All he'd have to do is keep investing the money in his company if he doesn't want it taxed. Or just spend it on cruises every year, or give more to charity, etc. Plenty of options available to those who really don't want to pay higher taxes. But just hording their money without creating any kind of job should be toerated only to a certain degree. Beyond a certain amount of accumulated non-essential wealth, it's time to give it, spend it, invest it or something for the benefit of society. We can give them options as to how they'll do that, but just hording indefinitely should not be accepted beyond a certain limit.
Again, the workers have every opportunity to invest/risk their cash, make the decisions and run the business.
I can agree to that. I was just suggeting an alternative to taxing corporations if the goal is redistribution of wealth. There are better ways to do so than through government. Perhaps my idea there was not the best, but it was just an idea I was throwing out there as an alternative to taxing corporate income as a means to redistributing wealth without the government having to get its hands on it. Certainly you might have a better idea.
Define 'funds needed' as opposed to the insatiable appetite of society to consume the freebies offered by gvt to garner votes?.. The reality is that everyone wants a say in how the money is spent, provided that it offers an immediate benefit and doesn't come directly out of their pocket...
Ihonestly see nothing wrong with our direct taxes being charity deductible There are plenty of organizations out there in need of our money and doing a great job, instead of just bloating government bureaucracy.
No Party Affiliation
#21
Re: Alternate taxation system: you choose
Apr 10th, 2009
''Any business dealings are a different matter ''
Much of down town Manhattan is owned by Trinity Church. Any businesses situated there are exempt from certain property taxes and other state/local assessments. Meanwhile, NYC residents and small businesses which are not situated in that location are forced to pay taxes in order to make up for the loss of revenues that these wealthy businesses don't have to pay.
That's welfare for the rich and it has gone on for decades without protest from the far right.
''taxed twice''
Negotiate treaties so that this does not happen. Meanwhile, certain businesses are not paying taxes overseas at all as they enjoy tax free profits by paying low wages to foreigners while denying Americans the jobs they deserve. (I imagine this must be true for Canada as well)
''I don't even see why we'd eed to tax corporations at all''
I do. Corporations own and sell assets, claim investment credits and accelerated depreciation, get billions in subsidies, earn tax free billions overseas, get deductions for salaries and wages paid, claim deductions for golden parachutes, claim deductions for bribes to foreign politicians while disguising them as businesses expenses. All that is welfare for the rich and must be taxed.
''I'd probaly go in reverse. Cut corporate taxes altogether''
Reagan and both Bush's cut corporate taxes and society did not benefit in any way. History clearly shows that we had higher employment rates when corporations were taxed more equitably.
Years ago when I was a corporate book keeper, I recall writing company checks to Columbia University's business school as the executives paid for their children's education through corporate funds and deucted those costs as business expenses. Can you deduct your children's education expenses on your tax returns? The company also paid off lobbyists in Washington DC and paid off foreign governments in order to conduct business overseas [these expenses were deducted on the company's tax returns]. Where the ethics in that??
I should add that the company hired their children and paid them for no show jobs. Again, the expenses were deducted on the company tax returns. That's not only unethical - it's down right fraud.
Much of down town Manhattan is owned by Trinity Church. Any businesses situated there are exempt from certain property taxes and other state/local assessments. Meanwhile, NYC residents and small businesses which are not situated in that location are forced to pay taxes in order to make up for the loss of revenues that these wealthy businesses don't have to pay.
That's welfare for the rich and it has gone on for decades without protest from the far right.
''taxed twice''
Negotiate treaties so that this does not happen. Meanwhile, certain businesses are not paying taxes overseas at all as they enjoy tax free profits by paying low wages to foreigners while denying Americans the jobs they deserve. (I imagine this must be true for Canada as well)
''I don't even see why we'd eed to tax corporations at all''
I do. Corporations own and sell assets, claim investment credits and accelerated depreciation, get billions in subsidies, earn tax free billions overseas, get deductions for salaries and wages paid, claim deductions for golden parachutes, claim deductions for bribes to foreign politicians while disguising them as businesses expenses. All that is welfare for the rich and must be taxed.
''I'd probaly go in reverse. Cut corporate taxes altogether''
Reagan and both Bush's cut corporate taxes and society did not benefit in any way. History clearly shows that we had higher employment rates when corporations were taxed more equitably.
Years ago when I was a corporate book keeper, I recall writing company checks to Columbia University's business school as the executives paid for their children's education through corporate funds and deucted those costs as business expenses. Can you deduct your children's education expenses on your tax returns? The company also paid off lobbyists in Washington DC and paid off foreign governments in order to conduct business overseas [these expenses were deducted on the company's tax returns]. Where the ethics in that??
I should add that the company hired their children and paid them for no show jobs. Again, the expenses were deducted on the company tax returns. That's not only unethical - it's down right fraud.
#22
Re: Alternate taxation system: you choose
Apr 10th, 2009Quote: Originally Posted by gopher
''Any business dealings are a different matter ''
Much of down town Manhattan is owned by Trinity Church. Any businesses situated there are exempt from certain property taxes and other state/local assessments. Meanwhile, NYC residents and small businesses which are not situated in that location are forced to pay taxes in order to make up for the loss of revenues that these wealthy businesses don't have to pay.
That's welfare for the rich and it has gone on for decades without protest from the far right.
If they are selling at profit, then I can definitely agree with that.
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher
''taxed twice''
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher
Negotiate treaties so that this does not happen. Meanwhile, certain businesses are not paying taxes overseas at all as they enjoy tax free profits by paying low wages to foreigners while denying Americans the jobs they deserve. (I imagine this must be true for Canada as well)
That I could agree with. If you reside in country X, you pay on all income you've received and all wealth you've accumulated worldwide to the government of country X, with no other country being allowed to tax you, at least not in direct taxes.
For this to work though, ideally we'd want tax rates to be roughly equal worldwide, and that would need consultation. and agreements.
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher
''I don't even see why we'd eed to tax corporations at all''
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher
I do. Corporations own and sell assets, claim investment credits and accelerated depreciation, get billions in subsidies, earn tax free billions overseas, get deductions for salaries and wages paid, claim deductions for golden parachutes, claim deductions for bribes to foreign politicians while disguising them as businesses expenses. All that is welfare for the rich and must be taxed.
A simple solution would be to give workers voting rights on the board of directors. Now earlier in the thread it was criticized on the grounds that ifworkers want voting rights in the company, they should buy stocks. Fair enough. Then an alternative solution could be to require workers to buy stocks in the company, or some other arrangement to provide checks and balances within the company itself.
Also such checks and balances would mean more money being spent on safety training, or salaries, or other projects to improve the company, empoyees, or local community. And if it raises employees' salaries, then they pay more taxes too. So I still don't see why corporate welfare would be necessary when other controls could be introduced to redisribute wealth more directly while bipassing government bureaucracy.
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher
''I'd probaly go in reverse. Cut corporate taxes altogether''
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher
Reagan and both Bush's cut corporate taxes and society did not benefit in any way. History clearly shows that we had higher employment rates when corporations were taxed more equitably.
But those corporations also didn't have the controls and balances that come with a worker's co-op. If workers should be required to buy stocks in the company and be given voting rights, then those companies would gradualy start to function like co-ops.
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher
Years ago when I was a corporate book keeper, I recall writing company checks to Columbia University's business school as the executives paid for their children's education through corporate funds and deucted those costs as business expenses. Can you deduct your children's education expenses on your tax returns? The company also paid off lobbyists in Washington DC and paid off foreign governments in order to conduct business overseas [these expenses were deducted on the company's tax returns]. Where the ethics in that??
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher
If there were no taxes,then there's be no tax fraud. But then if all the workers had a vote, the management would be under closer scrutiny too I'd imagine.
I should add that the company hired their children and paid them for no show jobs. Again, the expenses were deducted on the company tax returns. That's not only unethical - it's down right fraud.
Bloc Québécois
#23
Re: Alternate taxation system: you choose
Apr 10th, 2009Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo
I'd suggest that there needs to be some form of corp tax, even if the only focus is on the infrastructure that they use and to contribute to the overall system upon which society depends.
Fair enough. But I still don't think companies should be taxed. Just find some other way to ensure that the company be responsive to society. It could use that tax break for safety instruction to workers, or other things to improve the working conditions, salaries, or environmental sustainability. how can a company do that if it's taxed to the hilt.
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo
This brings-up so many issues. In large part, the charities no longer are charities are they? They have morphed into a form of business that society is obligated to fund. In my mind, they would basically be an extension of gvt (to a degree)... Who will qualify as the deductible charities and what if my preferred charity is not included? Am I still forced to donate?Most of the charities I am familiar with are tax deductible. Increasing pressure on the upper/middle income earners via new taxes sees an overall reduction on their contributions in total.
I can agree. That's why i'd suggested a 2 or 3% income tax. Compare that to what we have now. That would be a significant drop.
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo
I'd suggest that the formula would be remarkably complicated, however, observing the dynamics of human nature, you very well might see that people work towards achieving only to the threshold and stop there (or drastically reduce their efforts) because there is no more benefit to be had relative to the additional work... Bear in mind, that taxes are generated on wealth accumulated above a certain threshold. Offer no benefit above that level and your tax-base may dwindle dramatically along with the social programs, etc.Exactly who will determine what 'non-essential' wealth is?.. Will the formula be based on the approved cost of living per person and anything above is taxed into oblivion?
Granted that might be complicated. But we could give the tax-payer the benefit of the doubt whenever there is doubt. Accommodation is necessary. If you live far from work, transport is necessary. If you're self-employed, your business is necessary. if you have no other source of retirment income, your savings for future retirement are necessary. We could be flexible on the definition here of course.
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo
I don't smoke (anymore), but the manner in which tobacco, alcohol and gas are taxed are egregious. In my mind, the smokers/drinkers and drivers are pre-paying Tobacco, alcohol and gas are the current whipping-boys of the tax system.. Have been for years.
Well, if you smoke, you put an added burden on the health system. I can see only two options:
1. tax unhealthy foods, tobacco, alcohol. Or
2. (my favoured option) privatize health care. That way, veg-heads like me can get a break on our insurance premiums while you boozers, Mc-stuffers, and chimneys could pay your fair share.
their healthcare or paying up-front for their use of the roadways. If you want to really start talking about fair share, start with the progressive tax system. Rate each individual in terms of life-time income taxes paid-to-date and start deducting from that amount relative to their usage of the system(s).
Private healthcare? That is something that I feel needs (and will) happen in the not so distant future. Consider the system in the UK wherein there is a minimum guaranteed level and anything beyond is paid or relies on private insurance.
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo
People that get this wealthy rarely do it alone. These people employ others, pay corp income taxes as well as income taxes. For that matter, depending on which jurisdiction in Canada where you live/earn income, the combined prov/fed taxes can be in excess of 50%.... With this in mind, you want as many high-income earners as possible. If you want an idea of how beneficial this is, research the % contribution of taxes by income class. You may find that the results are startling.... Anyone with the cash will simply leave and take their money to live/work/invest/give to charities/employ and pay taxes in a jurisdiction that doesn't penalize those that do have and create the wealth.
I had the idea of an extremely high tax ceiling. Anyone who got that rich would clearly be just a hogger anyway. Do we really want a person sho just hogs till he gets 10,000,000$ rich?
And remember, i mentioned already that this would be non-essential wealth only. If he stopped hogging the money and invested it in his company instead, then he could avoid the tax and create jobs for others. His options would be there. How much money does one really need?
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo
You missed my earlier point. There are very real risks associated with operating a business, particularly with perpetual expansion. The point is that why would someone assume those risks and the associated work required whenthere is no direct, individual benefit to be had?.. I'm here to tell ya - it won't happen.Why bother re-investing? That may lead to more profits that will be deemed non-essential and confiscated by the state... Why on Earth would someone risk their money and time to with no possible reward attached to that risk and work?
All he'd have to do is keep investing the money in his company if he doesn't want it taxed. Or just spend it on cruises every year, or give more to charity, etc. Plenty of options available to those who really don't want to pay higher taxes. But just hording their money without creating any kind of job should be toerated only to a certain degree. Beyond a certain amount of accumulated non-essential wealth, it's time to give it, spend it, invest it or something for the benefit of society. We can give them options as to how they'll do that, but just hording indefinitely should not be accepted beyond a certain limit.
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo
This isn't about the charities. This is about setting an artificial maximum threshold for achievement (that is exactly how it will be perceived). Again, cash for taxes or charities is offered via excess wealth. If you set the max allowable limit at the poverty level (min level of subsistence) and people see no benefit (personally/materially) above that level, that's where most will stop. When they stop, there is no excess cash available for charities or excess taxes.Define 'funds needed' as opposed to the insatiable appetite of society to consume the freebies offered by gvt to garner votes?.. The reality is that everyone wants a say in how the money is spent, provided that it offers an immediate benefit and doesn't come directly out of their pocket...
Ihonestly see nothing wrong with our direct taxes being charity deductible There are plenty of organizations out there in need of our money and doing a great job, instead of just bloating government bureaucracy.
Bloc Québécois
#24
Re: Alternate taxation system: you choose
Apr 10th, 2009Quote: Originally Posted by gopher
It's the owner of the property that is responsible for the direct property taxes. If the Church owns it and are exempt, then so be it. The most probable Much of down town Manhattan is owned by Trinity Church. Any businesses situated there are exempt from certain property taxes and other state/local assessments. Meanwhile, NYC residents and small businesses which are not situated in that location are forced to pay taxes in order to make up for the loss of revenues that these wealthy businesses don't have to pay.
That's welfare for the rich and it has gone on for decades without protest from the far right.
scenario is that Trinity leases at a net cost comparable to the surrounding area (or whatever the market will bear) that would include the 'owners' property tax burden.
In terms of welfare for the rich, can you explain this, especially in light of the US (progressive) tax system? If you want to really boil it down, compare real dollars payable to the IRS for each income class, let alone the trickle-down benefits through the employment and economic growth therein.
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher
Negotiate treaties so that this does not happen. Meanwhile, certain businesses are not paying taxes overseas at all as they enjoy tax free profits by paying low wages to foreigners while denying Americans the jobs they deserve. (I imagine this must be true for Canada as well)
I believe that you'll find that the IRS taxes Americans individuals and US-based corps on their global income (as does Canada on it's citizens and corps). That said, some companies have formed independent subsidiaries located in tax-friendly jurisdictions that operate and pay taxes outside the States/Canada. These subs are subject to the tax rates in those locations. If the parent company elects to repatriate funds domestically, there are some loopholes that may offer favorable tax rates, but it doesn't eliminate the tax and they are closing them very fast.
As far as 'American jobs' going abroad, that is a wicked catch-22... Americans demand and support a system of market driven competition. generally, it rewards lowest prices and penalizes higher costs. This alone has driven the work overseas or supports other economies like China or India. Further, the companies will market rate or better in these countries. Just because those rates are lower than the US that is a direct reflection of the cost of living in that economy, this doesn't make the US groups demons.
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher
All of the above fails to recognize that these very same corps pay direct taxes through corp rates and later through payroll taxes and personal income taxes through payment of the employee base. Add-in the indirect taxes like GST or sales-style taxes, permits, licenses, fees, et al. and you'll find that the corp welfare you speak of is designed to promote more companies in their expansion and proliferation (so they'll contribute directly/indirectly in perpetuity)... Make no mistake, the gvt gets back all that money in spades in relatively little time. Corporations own and sell assets, claim investment credits and accelerated depreciation, get billions in subsidies, earn tax free billions overseas, get deductions for salaries and wages paid, claim deductions for golden parachutes, claim deductions for bribes to foreign politicians while disguising them as businesses expenses. All that is welfare for the rich and must be taxed.
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher
It's tough to draw a direct parallel to those policies and the overall effect... The nature of the global economy and the impact it had on the domestic economies blurs the relationship you suggest.Reagan and both Bush's cut corporate taxes and society did not benefit in any way. History clearly shows that we had higher employment rates when corporations were taxed more equitably.
(someone will be bound to bring-up the current econ realities and peg them to Bush as evidence: Note, the deregulation of the banking industry standards that lead to the sub-prime meltdown is a direct result of Carter's policies from decades past)
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher
Many companies offer benefits like these. It is not illegal. As for the kids working at the no-show jobs.. What's the problem. The corp still pays payroll tax and the kid gets dinged with income tax. The only people that can be truly upset would be the shareholders and not society in general.Years ago when I was a corporate book keeper, I recall writing company checks to Columbia University's business school as the executives paid for their children's education through corporate funds and deucted those costs as business expenses. Can you deduct your children's education expenses on your tax returns? The company also paid off lobbyists in Washington DC and paid off foreign governments in order to conduct business overseas [these expenses were deducted on the company's tax returns]. Where the ethics in that??
I should add that the company hired their children and paid them for no show jobs. Again, the expenses were deducted on the company tax returns. That's not only unethical - it's down right fraud.
No Party Affiliation
#25
Re: Alternate taxation system: you choose
Apr 10th, 2009
Yep, if there absolutely HAS to be taxes then, I think a consumtion tax makes more sense and is a little more democratic. YOu then have a choice - if you don't like the tax don't buy it. Essentials (basic foods, clothing (not $1500 cocktail dresses), medication and general health and grooming supplies, should not be taxed period. Lobster and caviar should be at a very high rate.
#26
Re: Alternate taxation system: you choose
Apr 10th, 2009
Flat tax, no deduction is the fairest way to go.
Our tax system now penalizes the rich and the lower money you make the less you pay because of the sliding scale which is unfair and people that make less than the minimum amount don’t pay taxes.
We have one of the most complex tax systems in the world where you have to sometimes hire a tax lawyer just to be treated fairly.
A fifteen percent flat tax that everybody pays from individuals to big corporations no deductions which means at the end of the year your tax return would be one page how much you earned and how much tax you have to pay.
Now we have to pay a lot more taxes and all the taxpayer federations just like to cry the blues because they are useless as something on a bull.
The taxpayer’s federation will never tell you about this web site
--
This site has all the information for you to secure business loans so you can use government money your money that is your tax dollars to jump start the economy they would rather just whine and pretend they are doing something to solve the problem and hope that you will give them some money to further their cause.
I know some people in these taxpayer’s federations around Canada and they are hard working individuals and very honest at what they do, but unfortunately they are mislead into the wrong thinking.
In my opinion they have to do a serious review on the direction they take to accomplish their goals because at the core a taxpayer’s federation local, provincial and federal is an effective way to create positive change but if they go in the wrong direction then they are no more effective than a junkyard dog.
If all levels of government bring in a flat tax system then there would be more money to take care the needs of society.
The government has to deal with their responsibilities and not try to get more money from other governments.
All levels of government have to live within their means that is no debt and deficit.
If we had this type of system then society would flourish in good times as well as bad times.
Our tax system now penalizes the rich and the lower money you make the less you pay because of the sliding scale which is unfair and people that make less than the minimum amount don’t pay taxes.
We have one of the most complex tax systems in the world where you have to sometimes hire a tax lawyer just to be treated fairly.
A fifteen percent flat tax that everybody pays from individuals to big corporations no deductions which means at the end of the year your tax return would be one page how much you earned and how much tax you have to pay.
Now we have to pay a lot more taxes and all the taxpayer federations just like to cry the blues because they are useless as something on a bull.
The taxpayer’s federation will never tell you about this web site
--
This site has all the information for you to secure business loans so you can use government money your money that is your tax dollars to jump start the economy they would rather just whine and pretend they are doing something to solve the problem and hope that you will give them some money to further their cause.
I know some people in these taxpayer’s federations around Canada and they are hard working individuals and very honest at what they do, but unfortunately they are mislead into the wrong thinking.
In my opinion they have to do a serious review on the direction they take to accomplish their goals because at the core a taxpayer’s federation local, provincial and federal is an effective way to create positive change but if they go in the wrong direction then they are no more effective than a junkyard dog.
If all levels of government bring in a flat tax system then there would be more money to take care the needs of society.
The government has to deal with their responsibilities and not try to get more money from other governments.
All levels of government have to live within their means that is no debt and deficit.
If we had this type of system then society would flourish in good times as well as bad times.
No Party Affiliation
#27
Re: Alternate taxation system: you choose
Apr 11th, 2009
''If there were no taxes,then there's be no tax fraud. '''
So I take it you agree that we in the USA should have no Pentagon, no foreign wars, no foreign aid, no welfare for the rich. That certainly is what I'm looking for.
So I take it you agree that we in the USA should have no Pentagon, no foreign wars, no foreign aid, no welfare for the rich. That certainly is what I'm looking for.
#28
Re: Alternate taxation system: you choose
Apr 11th, 2009
Quote Liberalman.
Flat tax, no deduction is the fairest way to go.
Unquote.
^ Right you are, couldnt agree more.
With a few additions.
Federal and Provincial business and personal taxes should be flat taxes.
Business taxes should be kept extremely competetive.
Massive savings in tax preparations especially for corporations.
Much easier and reduced manpower needs for Rev Can.
Rev Can could focus on enforcement and collection of tax cheats.
People under a certain income level would be tax exempt as it is now.
I also support a combined GST and Provincial sales tax as determined by each Province.
That becomes a straight across consumption tax and taxes the greatest consumer (the rich) the most.
A few items could be exempted to insure the least fortunate could obtain decent food, medicine and basic shelter.
If you do not like the blended sales tax in your Province you would have the option of moving to a different province with lower rates.
I also support a percentage rider that increases the sales tax on luxury or environmentally unfriendly products.
Thus you are taxed at a higher rate on a Lambo as versus a Civic or Prius.
If you can afford to snap up a Tinoretto or a Titan at auction you can afford to pay a little tax on it.
Additional pollution or environmental taxes could be applied to things like gasoline, heating oil and corporations that make a mess.
A carbon tax on gasoline and diesel for example acts as a subsidy to mass transit by encouraging usage.
Sin taxes are also worthwhile. Booze, cigarettes, gambling winnings and possibly pot and prostitution in the future should all be taxed at a higher rate.
Sin taxes are also known as a tax on the stupid.
The current fiscal meltdown probably will result in tax havens becoming much more transparent so I dont really see that as an issue. Its already illegal not to declare foreign income unless you are non-rez.
Churches should be tax favoured only if the collected funds are spent in the country they are collected in. Thus no offshoring religious donations.
Religous organizations would have to be vetted and certified by the Fed's before tax favoured status would be allowed.
Trex
Flat tax, no deduction is the fairest way to go.
Unquote.
^ Right you are, couldnt agree more.
With a few additions.
Federal and Provincial business and personal taxes should be flat taxes.
Business taxes should be kept extremely competetive.
Massive savings in tax preparations especially for corporations.
Much easier and reduced manpower needs for Rev Can.
Rev Can could focus on enforcement and collection of tax cheats.
People under a certain income level would be tax exempt as it is now.
I also support a combined GST and Provincial sales tax as determined by each Province.
That becomes a straight across consumption tax and taxes the greatest consumer (the rich) the most.
A few items could be exempted to insure the least fortunate could obtain decent food, medicine and basic shelter.
If you do not like the blended sales tax in your Province you would have the option of moving to a different province with lower rates.
I also support a percentage rider that increases the sales tax on luxury or environmentally unfriendly products.
Thus you are taxed at a higher rate on a Lambo as versus a Civic or Prius.
If you can afford to snap up a Tinoretto or a Titan at auction you can afford to pay a little tax on it.
Additional pollution or environmental taxes could be applied to things like gasoline, heating oil and corporations that make a mess.
A carbon tax on gasoline and diesel for example acts as a subsidy to mass transit by encouraging usage.
Sin taxes are also worthwhile. Booze, cigarettes, gambling winnings and possibly pot and prostitution in the future should all be taxed at a higher rate.
Sin taxes are also known as a tax on the stupid.
The current fiscal meltdown probably will result in tax havens becoming much more transparent so I dont really see that as an issue. Its already illegal not to declare foreign income unless you are non-rez.
Churches should be tax favoured only if the collected funds are spent in the country they are collected in. Thus no offshoring religious donations.
Religous organizations would have to be vetted and certified by the Fed's before tax favoured status would be allowed.
Trex
No Party Affiliation
#29
Re: Alternate taxation system: you choose
Apr 11th, 2009Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo
I'd choose "other".Which would you choose if you could?
Flat rate would be my choice. Everyone is taxed at the same rate. No deductions with one exception: people below a baseline income are exempt. And I mean PEOPLE, not COMPANIES.
#30
Re: Alternate taxation system: you choose
Apr 11th, 2009Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan
Just a few points here.I'd suggest that there needs to be some form of corp tax, even if the only focus is on the infrastructure that they use and to contribute to the overall system upon which society depends.
This brings-up so many issues. In large part, the charities no longer are charities are they? They have morphed into a form of business that society is obligated to fund. In my mind, they would basically be an extension of gvt (to a degree)... Who will qualify as the deductible charities and what if my preferred charity is not included? Am I still forced to donate?
I'd suggest that the formula would be remarkably complicated, however, observing the dynamics of human nature, you very well might see that people work towards achieving only to the threshold and stop there (or drastically reduce their efforts) because there is no more benefit to be had relative to the additional work... Bear in mind, that taxes are generated on wealth accumulated above a certain threshold. Offer no benefit above that level and your tax-base may dwindle dramatically along with the social programs, etc.
I don't smoke (anymore), but the manner in which tobacco, alcohol and gas are taxed are egregious. In my mind, the smokers/drinkers and drivers are pre-paying
their healthcare or paying up-front for their use of the roadways. If you want to really start talking about fair share, start with the progressive tax system. Rate each individual in terms of life-time income taxes paid-to-date and start deducting from that amount relative to their usage of the system(s).
Private healthcare? That is something that I feel needs (and will) happen in the not so distant future. Consider the system in the UK wherein there is a minimum guaranteed level and anything beyond is paid or relies on private insurance.
People that get this wealthy rarely do it alone. These people employ others, pay corp income taxes as well as income taxes. For that matter, depending on which jurisdiction in Canada where you live/earn income, the combined prov/fed taxes can be in excess of 50%.... With this in mind, you want as many high-income earners as possible. If you want an idea of how beneficial this is, research the % contribution of taxes by income class. You may find that the results are startling.
You missed my earlier point. There are very real risks associated with operating a business, particularly with perpetual expansion. The point is that why would someone assume those risks and the associated work required whenthere is no direct, individual benefit to be had?.. I'm here to tell ya - it won't happen.
This isn't about the charities. This is about setting an artificial maximum threshold for achievement (that is exactly how it will be perceived). Again, cash for taxes or charities is offered via excess wealth. If you set the max allowable limit at the poverty level (min level of subsistence) and people see no benefit (personally/materially) above that level, that's where most will stop. When they stop, there is no excess cash available for charities or excess taxes.
1. As for charities becoming like businesses, that's our choice. If I don't like how a certain charity operates, find another charity.
2. What if your preferred charity's not on the list? I'd say we'd need to be flexible and allow a wide range of charties on the list. If it's not for profit, it's a charity.
3. I recognize that the quesiton of 'non-essential wealth' can be very open to interpretation, but we could create a reasonable definition thereof.
4. You seem to oppose a wealth cap. It's not as bad as it might sound. Let's suppose the wealth cap is set at 10 million dollars. Considering that non-essential wealth would be exempted, and that that could include anything needed to live, to invest for the future or a rainy day, business for bread and butter, etc., that would mean that this cap would apply exclusively to non-essential personal wealth. This could include things like your personal yacht, villa, etc.
Now seriously, how much accumulated personal wealth does a person really need?! Would that necessarily be a cap on achievement?
Remember, if I give to charity, I'm helping people. If I spend my money or other wealth, I'm creating jobs. If I invest my money or other wealth, I'm creating jobs. But if all I'm doing is hording my money or other wealth, that might benefit me, but no one else. Worse yet, not only is it not benfitting others, but even dragging the economy down and creating unemployment. Wealth can create employment as long as it is circulated. If it is just accumulated, it slows the economy down. This thus becomes a matter of personal responsibilty to your fellow man.
Similar Threads
2
690
8
0
0