TENS - Taxed Enough Nova Scotians


atlanticaparty
Avatar
#1
We are a non partisan grassroots movement of hard working Nova Scotians looking to make a difference by opposing any tax increase by the current government and working towards keeping more of our hard earned dollars.

Join Us.

--

--
 
JLM
Avatar
#2
Quote: Originally Posted by atlanticapartyView Post

We are a non partisan grassroots movement of hard working Nova Scotians looking to make a difference by opposing any tax increase by the current government and working towards keeping more of our hard earned dollars.

Join Us.

--

--

Good luck on your endeavour, you have a guargantuan chore ahead, just the start of which is getting 306 snouts out of the trough in Ottawa. Not only that but there are idiots among us who think we can tax our way back to prosperity. On average the individual spends money a lot more sensibly than the Gov't.
 
SirJosephPorter
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by atlanticapartyView Post

We are a non partisan grassroots movement of hard working Nova Scotians looking to make a difference by opposing any tax increase by the current government and working towards keeping more of our hard earned dollars.

Join Us.

--

--

I suggest you join the Tea Party in USA. You will get a favorable reception there. In Canada, we just don’t go for that far right philosophy, cut taxes at any cost, and hang the deficit and the debt.

When we come out of the economic hole, I personally would support tax increase if it goes straight to reducing the budget deficit. (and is not squandered away on new programs) and provided it is also accompanied with spending cuts.

But that kind of extreme philosophy, proposing simple solutions to complex problems (cut taxes, that will fix everything) just doesn’t go down well in Canada. In Ontario, McGuinty raised taxes (by breaking an election pledge); he is as popular as ever. He used the tax increase to balance the budget and run a surplus.
 
TenPenny
Avatar
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by atlanticapartyView Post

We are a non partisan grassroots movement of hard working Nova Scotians looking to make a difference by opposing any tax increase by the current government and working towards keeping more of our hard earned dollars.

Join Us.

--

--

You cannot possibly expect anyone to believe that the 'Atlantica Party' is a grassroots organization.
 
atlanticaparty
Avatar
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

I suggest you join the Tea Party in USA. You will get a favorable reception there. In Canada, we just don’t go for that far right philosophy, cut taxes at any cost, and hang the deficit and the debt.

But that kind of extreme philosophy, proposing simple solutions to complex problems (cut taxes, that will fix everything) just doesn’t go down well in Canada. In Ontario, McGuinty raised taxes (by breaking an election pledge); he is as popular as ever. He used the tax increase to balance the budget and run a surplus.

Who is saying anything about cutting taxes? We are opposing a proposed 2% HST hike to cover non-essential government spending that is out of control. That's far-right ???
 
atlanticaparty
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

You cannot possibly expect anyone to believe that the 'Atlantica Party' is a grassroots organization.

What else is it then?
 
SirJosephPorter
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by atlanticapartyView Post

Who is saying anything about cutting taxes? We are opposing a proposed 2% HST hike to cover non-essential government spending that is out of control. That's far-right ???


Well, when you said the following,

Quote: Originally Posted by atlanticapartyView Post

We are a non partisan grassroots movement of hard working Nova Scotians looking to make a difference by opposing any tax increase by the current government and working towards keeping more of our hard earned dollars.

I got the impression that current government meant both the governments in Ottawa and in Halifax, and that your party would be opposed to any and all tax increases. If they are increasing HST by 2%, that is the matter for Nova Scotians to decide.

But as far as Ottawa is concerned, I think a policy that says that no tax increases under any circumstances (or even advocating tax cuts) is an extreme policy.
 
ironsides
Avatar
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

I suggest you join the Tea Party in USA. You will get a favorable reception there. In Canada, we just don’t go for that far right philosophy, cut taxes at any cost, and hang the deficit and the debt.

When we come out of the economic hole, I personally would support tax increase if it goes straight to reducing the budget deficit. (and is not squandered away on new programs) and provided it is also accompanied with spending cuts.

But that kind of extreme philosophy, proposing simple solutions to complex problems (cut taxes, that will fix everything) just doesn’t go down well in Canada. In Ontario, McGuinty raised taxes (by breaking an election pledge); he is as popular as ever. He used the tax increase to balance the budget and run a surplus.

Nope, ya don't. Everyone does not thinks like the elitist class where you will pay anything for someone else to take care of you, make all the decisions for you. Sort of making the government your private butler. No, the Atlantica Party is showing that there is some life left up there that wants to take control of their own lives. Not even close to the Tea Party, but a good start. Solutions to our problems do not have to be complex, sometimes the simplest answers are best, and they do not have to cost more money.


"When we come out of the economic hole, I personally would support tax increase if it goes straight to reducing the budget deficit. (and is not squandered away on new programs) and provided it is also accompanied with spending cuts."

Seriously, when has either of our federal goverments ever done exactly what you said?
 
SirJosephPorter
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

"When we come out of the economic hole, I personally would support tax increase if it goes straight to reducing the budget deficit. (and is not squandered away on new programs) and provided it is also accompanied with spending cuts."

Seriously, when has either of our federal goverments ever done exactly what you said?

Oh, I can think of a couple of examples, ironsides. Liberals here in Canada balanced the budget, they had to take many painful decisions, including spending cuts and tax increases. There were howls of protests, there was plenty of screaming by the Conservatives (of course), and also by special interest, advocacy groups.

However, it is the strength of our Parliamentary system that since Liberals had the majority, they could put through unpopular but necessary policies in spite of widespread opposition. They would never have been able to do it in USA.

Anyway, not only they balanced the budget as a result, they ran a healthy surplus for several years. When Bush was racking up huge deficits in USA, Liberals were running a healthy surplus here in Canada (one of the reasons why the current downturn has been a lot less severe in Canada compared to USA).

Another example was right here in Ontario. When Liberals (McGuinty) came to power, it came to light that Conservatives had heavily cooked the books, the budget deficit was 6 billion, and not 2 billion as they claimed during the campaign. It was much more difficult to balance the budget as a result. McGuinty promptly raised taxes (breaking the election pledge of not doing so), channeled all the tax increase to balancing the budget and was able to balance the budget in 2 or 3 years.

So it can be done, all it needs is the will to do it and to ignore the howls of outrage that inevitably will come from the opposition and special interest groups (and of course, having a political system which lets you do that, where there is no filibuster, helps).
 
TenPenny
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by atlanticapartyView Post

What else is it then?

It's an organization of major businesses, and boards of trade, and the AIMS.
 
bobnoorduyn
Avatar
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

Oh, I can think of a couple of examples, ironsides. Liberals here in Canada balanced the budget, they had to take many painful decisions, including spending cuts and tax increases. There were howls of protests, there was plenty of screaming by the Conservatives (of course), and also by special interest, advocacy groups.

And just how do you think they balanced that budget? Gee, I dunno, I guess we take the usurious paroll taxes like UI, (euphemistically re named EI) and its surplus of $50,000,000,000 and apply it to the federal deficit of $50,000,000,000, and bingo, balanced budget. Sure, they finally knuckled under to pressure to raise the thresholds for marginal tax rates put in place by the Mulroney government that lead to bracket creep, but it took them 4 years to do that, long after the budget was balanced, but still didn't decrease payroll taxes. It is a shell game, the Liberals perfected it, (if they didn't themselves invent it). They weren't hard decisions, they had a majority, they ran the country like a dictatorship, the only effective opposition was within their own ranks. Don't you get it yet? We pay over half of our income to the government, if you don't think that is wrong there is just no hope for you.
 
bobnoorduyn
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

It's an organization of major businesses, and boards of trade, and the AIMS.

And this is bad because...?
 
JLM
Avatar
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by bobnoorduynView Post

And just how do you think they balanced that budget? Gee, I dunno, I guess we take the usurious paroll taxes like UI, (euphemistically re named EI) and its surplus of $50,000,000,000 and apply it to the federal deficit of $50,000,000,000, and bingo, balanced budget. Sure, they finally knuckled under to pressure to raise the thresholds for marginal tax rates put in place by the Mulroney government that lead to bracket creep, but it took them 4 years to do that, long after the budget was balanced, but still didn't decrease payroll taxes. It is a shell game, the Liberals perfected it, (if they didn't themselves invent it). They weren't hard decisions, they had a majority, they ran the country like a dictatorship, the only effective opposition was within their own ranks. Don't you get it yet? We pay over half of our income to the government, if you don't think that is wrong there is just no hope for you.

Bob- I think whether it is wrong or not depends on the financial situation of the guy deciding. I guess a person with an income of over $100, 000 can stand a little more tax. The rest of us are already taxed to the gills. If we have to cut back on our spending then I think the gov't should set an example. I'm not about to do it now but quite recently I checked M.P.'s travel allowance, actually in access of most Canadian's salary, it's obscene and I personally think it could be reduced by 60% before any taxes are increased one penny.
 
SirJosephPorter
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by bobnoorduynView Post

And just how do you think they balanced that budget? Gee, I dunno, I guess we take the usurious paroll taxes like UI, (euphemistically re named EI) and its surplus of $50,000,000,000 and apply it to the federal deficit of $50,000,000,000, and bingo, balanced budget.

I think you have a wrong concept of what a deficit is. The EI surplus, whatever it was, was a one time surplus only, the deficit occurs every year.

Even if liberals had used EI surplus to balance the budget, that would be only for one year, they still would have to balance the budget next year, after the surplus is gone. You cannot use the one time reserves to get rid of a recurring deficit.

Let me illustrate. Suppose a family earns 50,000 $ per year but spends 60,000. They have 20,000 $ in the bank. Do you think that using those 20,000 $ they can balance the budget? No way, they could do it for a couple of years, but the problem will still persist.

If balancing the budget was so easy, why didn’t Mulroney do it? Even the liberals took several years to do it. If it was just an accounting trick, using EI surplus to get rid of the deficit, they could have done it at a stroke of a pen, in one year (or less than a year). I remember when Liberals declared their objective of balancing the budget, most of the press was openly skeptical, they didn’t think Liberals could do it.

They had to take unpopular decisions, involving both spending cuts and tax increases. That I the only way to balance the budget.
 
SirJosephPorter
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by bobnoorduynView Post

They weren't hard decisions, they had a majority, they ran the country like a dictatorship, the only effective opposition was within their own ranks. Don't you get it yet? We pay over half of our income to the government, if you don't think that is wrong there is just no hope for you.

They were hard decision, if it was easy, even Mulroney could have done it. As to them having a majority, that is the strength of our Parliamentary system. They had the majority, they could implement their agenda, then people can pass judgment on it in four years’ time.

They could never have balanced the budget in American style of democracy. If we had the same system as in USA, where party members can vote against their PM any time they wish, where there is a filibuster, Canada today would be drowning under a mountain of debt and deficit (with a deficit of perhaps more than 100 billion $), as they are doing in USA.

We still have a big deficit (34 billion $ in 2009), but that is much smaller than what they have in USA (1.4 trillion) even as a percentage of GDP. And it would have been even smaller if Harper had not blown away all the Liberal surplus into tax cuts, mainly benefiting the rich.
 
atlanticaparty
Avatar
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

It's an organization of major businesses, and boards of trade, and the AIMS.

That's nonsense. We are a group of unaffiliated citizens. What leads you to say such a thing?

Which businesses?
Which boards of trade?
Who from AIMS is involved?
What other groups not mentioned?
 
SirJosephPorter
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by bobnoorduynView Post

Don't you get it yet? We pay over half of our income to the government, if you don't think that is wrong there is just no hope for you.

As to that, that is a myth propagated by conservatives, that we pay high taxes here in Canada. We may pay slightly higher taxes than in USA (even here, the difference is not huge, contrary to popular belief. And the comparison there is skewed, seeing that they pay separate social security tax, medical insurance etc.). However, our taxes are quite comparable with Europe, Australia, New Zealand etc, and indeed compare quite favorably with that in many developed countries.

--
 
TenPenny
Avatar
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by bobnoorduynView Post

And this is bad because...?

I didn't say it was bad.

I said that it was not a grassroots oganization.

Because it isn't.
 
SirJosephPorter
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Bob- I think whether it is wrong or not depends on the financial situation of the guy deciding. I guess a person with an income of over $100, 000 can stand a little more tax. The rest of us are already taxed to the gills. If we have to cut back on our spending then I think the gov't should set an example. I'm not about to do it now but quite recently I checked M.P.'s travel allowance, actually in access of most Canadian's salary, it's obscene and I personally think it could be reduced by 60% before any taxes are increased one penny.

Quite so, JLM. One area where taxes could be increased would be in the RRSP allowance. During Liberal rule, maximum RRSP allowance was 12,500 $. Slowly it has been increasing every year, and now it stands at 21,000 $. That is a huge bonanza for the upper middle class and the rich, the two of us together can shelter 42,000 $ every year in a tax free account.

Compared to what we had during Liberal government, that represents a tax saving of about 7000 dollars per year, a huge gift to the upper classes. The maximum permissible RRSP allowance could easily be rolled back a bit to generate a bit more revenue.

Of course, that won’t generate much, as a rule, taxing upper middle class and the rich doesn’t generate much revenue (there just aren’t that many of them). Rich and upper middle classes must be taxed to achieve tax fairness, but it doesn’t generate much revenue. To raise any serious revenue, one must tax the middle class.

However, a prudent PM would go about balancing the budget as soon as the economy recovers (and that can only be done by tax increases and spending cuts) or we will go the way of USA.
 
TenPenny
Avatar
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by atlanticapartyView Post

That's nonsense. We are a group of unaffiliated citizens. What leads you to say such a thing?

Which businesses?
Which boards of trade?
Who from AIMS is involved?
What other groups not mentioned?

So, are you trying to pretend that the 'Atlantica Party' has nothing to do with the Atlantica concept that was being discussed at all the meetings last year and the year before?

That's a stretch.
 
JLM
Avatar
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

As to that, that is a myth propagated by conservatives, that we pay high taxes here in Canada. We may pay slightly higher taxes than in USA (even here, the difference is not huge, contrary to popular belief. And the comparison there is skewed, seeing that they pay separate social security tax, medical insurance etc.). However, our taxes are quite comparable with Europe, Australia, New Zealand etc, and indeed compare quite favorably with that in many developed countries.

--

I just took a glance at the attachment- it's either Bullsh*t or it incomplete. For individuals it shows 15-29%. Yeah, right. You and I both know that once our income is over about $50,000 we are into the 41% Fed. tax category + substantial Prov. tax and that just covers income. On top of that we have property taxes, P.S.t. H.S.T., tobacco taxes, alcohol taxes, real estate sales taxes, gasoline taxes..............Need I go on?
 
TenPenny
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

That is a huge bonanza for the upper middle class and the rich, the two of us together can shelter 42,000 $ every year in a tax free account.

You mean 'tax deferred', I hope.
 
SirJosephPorter
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

I just took a glance at the attachment- it's either Bullsh*t or it incomplete. For individuals it shows 15-29%. Yeah, right. You and I both know that once our income is over about $50,000 we are into the 41% Fed. tax category + substantial Prov. tax and that just covers income. On top of that we have property taxes, P.S.t. H.S.T., tobacco taxes, alcohol taxes, real estate sales taxes, gasoline taxes..............Need I go on?

I see, since the numbers don’t agree with your preconceived notions, they are bull****. Talk about a closed mind.

As to your claim of 41% federal taxes, I looked at 2008 tax return of me and my wife, we are both high earners.

The ratio of taxes payable to total income (line 150 in the tax form) was 17%. If one looks at the net income (after RRSP and all the other deductions, line 236), the ratio was 27.8%, a far cry from your 41%. And this includes the federal tax, provincial tax and CPP contributions for both the employee and the employer. And we are high earners, I assume somebody earning 50 or 60,000, the ratio would be a lot less.

As I said, high taxes are a myth propagated by the conservatives. We are no different than Europe or Australia/New Zealand. In fact we compare quite favorably with many of them.
Last edited by SirJosephPorter; Feb 24th, 2010 at 07:34 AM..
 
SirJosephPorter
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

You mean 'tax deferred', I hope.

Certainly tax deferred, TenPenny. But taxes will be differed for many years to come. When time comes to collapse the RRSP, it can always be rolled over into a RRIF. And when it comes to withdrawing money from the RRIF, why there are also ways to minimize the tax paid there.
 
JLM
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

I see, since the numbers don’t agree with your preconceived notions, they are bull****. Talk about a closed mind.

.


Sorry the 41% was Fed + Prov. combined.
 
atlanticaparty
Avatar
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

So, are you trying to pretend that the 'Atlantica Party' has nothing to do with the Atlantica concept that was being discussed at all the meetings last year and the year before?

That's a stretch.

Nothing what so ever. AP has been around for a few years, we picked the name before the Atlantica concept thing came along. We have an Atlantica Hotel here in Halifax, does that mean it is it is run by AIMS?

Still waiting for the names of the groups you say we 'front' for ...
 
TenPenny
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

Certainly tax deferred, TenPenny. But taxes will be differed for many years to come. When time comes to collapse the RRSP, it can always be rolled over into a RRIF. And when it comes to withdrawing money from the RRIF, why there are also ways to minimize the tax paid there.

Of course there are, but 'tax free' is not the same as 'tax deferred'.
 
ironsides
Avatar
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

I see, since the numbers don’t agree with your preconceived notions, they are bull****. Talk about a closed mind.

As to your claim of 41% federal taxes, I looked at 2008 tax return of me and my wife, we are both high earners.

The ratio of taxes payable to total income (line 150 in the tax form) was 17%. If one looks at the net income (after RRSP and all the other deductions, line 236), the ratio was 27.8%, a far cry from your 41%. And this includes the federal tax, provincial tax and CPP contributions for both the employee and the employer. And we are high earners, I assume somebody earning 50 or 60,000, the ratio would be a lot less.

As I said, high taxes are a myth propagated by the conservatives. We are no different than Europe or Australia/New Zealand. In fact we compare quite favorably with many of them.


You have to stop trying to compare yourself to Europe, Australia and New Zealand. They are examples of countries who pay very high taxes. You live in a land of taxes, not that we don't, but were not anywhere taxed as high as you are. I does not matter who you pay your taxes to, it all comes out of your pocket. (20% Fed 21% Provincial) or any combination it actually is. There is no reason for Provincial taxes to be so high, most of what they pay for should come from the federal gov.. In the U.S. our state taxes are much lower than federal, and in a couple of states are non-existent.
Lets not go into all the freebies you may get like health care and education. It is not free, you do pay for it,
 
SirJosephPorter
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Sorry the 41% was Fed + Prov. combined.

Makes no difference, JLM (I figured that is what you meant), my post #23 still applies.
 
SirJosephPorter
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

I does not matter who you pay your taxes to, it all comes out of your pocket. (20% Fed 21% Provincial) or any combination it actually is. There is no reason for Provincial taxes to be so high, most of what they pay for should come from the federal gov..

You have your information wrong, ironsides, provincial taxes are nowhere near as high, they are much lower than federal taxes, and not higher as you seem to think.

And comparison between Canada and USA is difficult. You have to pay for Social Security, medical insurance on top of your taxes. In many big cities such as New York, there a substantial city tax, on top of federal and state taxes.

In many areas in USA, public schools are of appallingly low quality, one almost has to send one’s kids to private schools. Over most of Canada, quality of public schools is quite good, there is no need to send one’s kids to private schools and pay the exorbitant fees. Toll roads are quite common in USA, they are practically non existent in Canada.

But there have been some detailed comparisons and they have come to conclusion that taking all things into account, taxes in USA are only marginally lower than those in Canada, there is not a substantial difference.
 

Similar Threads

3
Art for Nova Scotians by a Nova Scotian
by JudyMArtist | Nov 10th, 2009
20
Are We Canadians Over-taxed?
by faithlessforeve | Apr 11th, 2008
0
$88B dollars escapes being taxed in Canada
by alienofwar | Mar 16th, 2005
no new posts