What taxes do you prefer?


View Poll Results: What kind of tax would you prefer?
A high tax tht is avoidable, at least in principle. 1 16.67%
A low tax that is unavoidable. 5 83.33%
Voters: 6. You may not vote on this poll

Machjo
#1
If given a choice, would you prefer a low tax that you cannot avoid (for example, an income tax or a generally-applied value-added tax) or a high tax that you can avoid, at least in principle (for example, a wealth tax or a tax on net profits from the extraction of non-renewable resources or the production of alcohol, tobacco, lottery tickets, and other such unnecessary products?

It's interesting that someone voted for lower but unavoidable taxes. What? Trying to keep your booze and cigarette taxes low or something?
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#2
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

If given a choice, would you prefer a low tax that you cannot avoid (for example, an income tax or a generally-applied value-added tax) or a high tax that you can avoid, at least in principle (for example, a wealth tax or a tax on net profits from the extraction of non-renewable resources or the production of alcohol, tobacco, lottery tickets, and other such unnecessary products?

It's interesting that someone voted for lower but unavoidable taxes. What? Trying to keep your booze and cigarette taxes low or something?

Because I pay my taxes, believe that every one of us should, as well but I would be happier to pay less of them.
 
Machjo
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

Because I pay my taxes, believe that every one of us should, as well but I would be happier to pay less of them.

Then let me ask you some questions. Why should the rich who works from home or who walks to and from work pay as much in taxes as the lower-middle-class man who works downtown, lives in the suburbs, and commutes to and from work?

Why should the rich non-smoker contribute as much as the poor smoker to healthcare costs? Or the rich teetotaler as much as the poorer drinker?

Resource-taxes and so-called sin taxes help to remedy this discrepancy. Do you oppose user-pay?

Likewise, why should the rich man who gives much money to charity pay as much in tax as the rich man who doesn't? If we tax income, both end up paying as much tax if they've earned as much. But if we tax wealth, then the one who gives more to charity will be relatively poorer than the other and so would end up paying less wealth tax.

Now I suppose that if a person would really, really want to thumb his nose at the government, he could give all of his wealth to charity, exchange his car for a bicycle, stop smoking and drinking and stop going to the casino too. While I'm sure some people would manage to avoid some of these taxes, no one would avoid them completely unless he chooses to live like a monk. How many people would choose that option? Some might, but so few that they'd barely register a blip on the CRA's radar and if they manage to care for their health, give their wealth away to charity, and consume few resources and so pay minimal taxes, then should they not be compensated for their social responsibilty?

Heck, in all honesty, unless they decide to move out into the wilderness, even they would still end up paying at least some tax, however indirectly, on occasion.

Even an 'avoidable' tax would be avoidable only to a degree.

Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

Because I pay my taxes, believe that every one of us should, as well but I would be happier to pay less of them.

You say you'd be happier to pay less tax. Wouldn't avoidable taxes be preferable then? That way, you could significantly reduce your tax contribution simply by revising your habits.
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#4
Why should the rich who works from home or who walks to and from work pay as much in taxes as the lower-middle-class man who works downtown, lives in the suburbs, and commutes to and from work?

Because they are both citizens of the same juristiction that has to provide a whole range of services, infrastructure and defence that is required for the continuation of civilization. If you don't want to do that, don't let the exit door hit your a55 at the border.

You say you'd be happier to pay less tax. Wouldn't avoidable taxes be preferable then? That way, you could significantly reduce your tax contribution simply by revising your habits.

You mean, if I'm clever enough to cheat, I should be able to cheat? Why are there laws against my robbing banks, too if I'm clever enough and brave enough to pull it off? It's okay to rob my fellow citizens but not a bank?
 
Machjo
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

Why should the rich who works from home or who walks to and from work pay as much in taxes as the lower-middle-class man who works downtown, lives in the suburbs, and commutes to and from work?

Because they are both citizens of the same juristiction that has to provide a whole range of services, infrastructure and defence that is required for the continuation of civilization. If you don't want to do that, don't let the exit door hit your a55 at the border.

So the poor guy should be left off the hook while smoking, hogging the roads, drinking, etc. just because the poor guy's poor? Don't get me wrong. I feel for him. But at the same time, patriotism does not mean I do what i want and you pick up the tab.
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

So the poor guy should be left off the hook while smoking, hogging the roads, drinking, etc. just because the poor guy's poor? Don't get me wrong. I feel for him. But at the same time, patriotism does not mean I do what i want and you pick up the tab.

I didn't say that a poor guy shouldn't pay taxes. I said that everybody should pay their taxes.
 
Machjo
#7
And like I said before, unless you're an absolute genius, good luck not paying any tax even under a system with only 'avoidable' taxes. The difference is simply that the taxes would be more user-pay for the most part.

Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

I didn't say that a poor guy shouldn't pay taxes. I said that everybody should pay their taxes.

Again, even in a system with 'avoidable' taxes, it would be difficult to totally avoid them. But of course if a person accepts more social responsibility by drinking less or smoking less or contributing less to traffic congestion, then he would pay less gas tax or tobacco or alcohol tax, etc.
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#8
if a person accepts more social responsibility by drinking less or smoking less or contributing less to traffic congestion, then he would pay less gas tax or tobacco or alcohol tax, etc.
quick reply | full reply | multi-quote: Multi-Quote This Message


If a person smokes or drinks to excess, he should have to pay a higher health care premium, as he normally would have to with any other insurance scheme, as he is potentially a higher liability to the health care system.

, good luck not paying any tax even under a system with only 'avoidable' taxes.

Very rich people who can afford accountancy resources that the rest of us can't, very often pay little or no tax.
 
Machjo
#9
What do we do about the poor guy who can't afford to buy insurance because he's spent all of his money on booze? I figure that with a high enough alcohol tax, then the government could pay it for him with the money he'd paid on the alcohol tax. I consider smoking, drinking, gambling, and driving around in a Hummer to be luxuries, not rights. So i do support a gas tax, or cigerette tax, etc. but not taxes like the GST or business taxes that are universally applicable.
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

What do we do about the poor guy who can't afford to buy insurance because he's spent all of his money on booze? I figure that with a high enough alcohol tax, then the government could pay it for him with the money he'd paid on the alcohol tax. I consider smoking, drinking, gambling, and driving around in a Hummer to be luxuries, not rights. So i do support a gas tax, or cigerette tax, etc. but not taxes like the GST or business taxes that are universally applicable.

Business taxes are pointless and counterproductive. Corporations often have a lot of money,so it is easy for a government to take it away from them but it is very possible that if they take away less, they will collect more from the employees of those corporations. Count on that, actually.

GST is flat, fair and does not discriminate between citizens.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#11
I prefere the fart tax. You would be most equitably be taxed by your emmisssions. This of course is in complete compl,ince with innumerable clean air legislations, every Canadians mean emmishions should be annually recorded of course to effect fair taxation. I think you'll be a victom of equality..A democratric tragedy.
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

So the poor guy should be left off the hook while smoking, hogging the roads, drinking, etc. just because the poor guy's poor? Don't get me wrong. I feel for him. But at the same time, patriotism does not mean I do what i want and you pick up the tab.

Cigarettes are heavily taxed. It's not like he hasn't partially subsidized his health care.
 
petros
#13
I hate the what tax.
 
davesmom
+2
#14
I would happily pay income tax to the Federal Government if they limited their responsibilities to what they are supposed to do. The trouble is they have their noses stuck into every aspect of management and the duplication with Provincial and Municipal matters is sucking our tax money dry.
I would happily pay municipal tax if communities were smaller (as they used to be) and independent of the higher levels of government.
If there has to be a Provincial government in between, then the duties and responsibilities of each level of government should be clearly defined with no overlapping.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#15
Income tax is good (much as I hate it) it taxes money at the source. Tax on luxury purchases probably isn't a bad idea too. Sin taxes may be good, they CAN help to repair/offset the damage done by the sin. They should be directed accordingly.
 
davesmom
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

Then let me ask you some questions. Why should the rich who works from home or who walks to and from work pay as much in taxes as the lower-middle-class man who works downtown, lives in the suburbs, and commutes to and from work?

Why should the rich non-smoker contribute as much as the poor smoker to healthcare costs? Or the rich teetotaler as much as the poorer drinker?

Resource-taxes and so-called sin taxes help to remedy this discrepancy. Do you oppose user-pay?

Likewise, why should the rich man who gives much money to charity pay as much in tax as the rich man who doesn't? If we tax income, both end up paying as much tax if they've earned as much. But if we tax wealth, then the one who gives more to charity will be relatively poorer than the other and so would end up paying less wealth tax.

Now I suppose that if a person would really, really want to thumb his nose at the government, he could give all of his wealth to charity, exchange his car for a bicycle, stop smoking and drinking and stop going to the casino too. While I'm sure some people would manage to avoid some of these taxes, no one would avoid them completely unless he chooses to live like a monk. How many people would choose that option? Some might, but so few that they'd barely register a blip on the CRA's radar and if they manage to care for their health, give their wealth away to charity, and consume few resources and so pay minimal taxes, then should they not be compensated for their social responsibilty?

Heck, in all honesty, unless they decide to move out into the wilderness, even they would still end up paying at least some tax, however indirectly, on occasion.

Even an 'avoidable' tax would be avoidable only to a degree.



The question you ask here are what I mean when I say the government has its nose stuck into all matters that none of its business.
This is supposed to be a 'free' country, yet authorities have the audacity to try and manage our private lives.
Everyone is supposed to be equal yet authorities set it up so that those who do what they are told/advised to do get different treatment.
By social engineering, government has tries to herd us all into one pen like good little sheep.


It is nobody's business, much less government's, whether a person walks, drives or takes public transit to work. We supposedly pay taxes so that we can walk, drive or have public transit at our disposal because government has done its job providing the necessary amenities ie, safe walkways, public parking, train/bus service.


It is nobody's business if we drink, smoke, or what we do. People do things that are more dangerous than smoking and drinking. Amateur hobbyists cut their hand off with jig saws, Druggies overdose, Fat people don't exercise and eat unhealthy foods. People have indiscriminate sex and get STDs/AIDS.
Our health care is supposed to look after EVERYONE. A doctor has no business asking a person how he got hurt/sick before he treats them. His job is to treat people, NOT to judge them.


It is nobody's business how much money a person has or what he does with it. It is nobody's business whether we give to charity or not. We cannot claim 'equality for all' if we are going to dictate things like this. Yet that's what government does and many people agree with it.


The only truly way for us to have democracy/free country is for government to get out of people's personal lives. One tax for all. a 10% tax is only $4000 . to the man who earns $40,000 as opposed to $100,000 to the man who makes $1,000,000. Quite a difference and should level the playing field adequately for government to pay for its mandated responsibilities. IF government did only what government is supposed to do!
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
+1
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

Then let me ask you some questions. Why should the rich who works from home or who walks to and from work pay as much in taxes as the lower-middle-class man who works downtown, lives in the suburbs, and commutes to and from work?

Why should the rich non-smoker contribute as much as the poor smoker to healthcare costs? Or the rich teetotaler as much as the poorer drinker?

Resource-taxes and so-called sin taxes help to remedy this discrepancy. Do you oppose user-pay?

Likewise, why should the rich man who gives much money to charity pay as much in tax as the rich man who doesn't? If we tax income, both end up paying as much tax if they've earned as much. But if we tax wealth, then the one who gives more to charity will be relatively poorer than the other and so would end up paying less wealth tax.

Now I suppose that if a person would really, really want to thumb his nose at the government, he could give all of his wealth to charity, exchange his car for a bicycle, stop smoking and drinking and stop going to the casino too. While I'm sure some people would manage to avoid some of these taxes, no one would avoid them completely unless he chooses to live like a monk. How many people would choose that option? Some might, but so few that they'd barely register a blip on the CRA's radar and if they manage to care for their health, give their wealth away to charity, and consume few resources and so pay minimal taxes, then should they not be compensated for their social responsibilty?

Heck, in all honesty, unless they decide to move out into the wilderness, even they would still end up paying at least some tax, however indirectly, on occasion.

Even an 'avoidable' tax would be avoidable only to a degree.



You say you'd be happier to pay less tax. Wouldn't avoidable taxes be preferable then? That way, you could significantly reduce your tax contribution simply by revising your habits.


You have to be careful.....................do you really want to do a complete "inventory" on every person? What about the person who plays bingo as opposed to down hill skiing? It would just be a "witch hunt" w/o gaining much useful information. You have the guy who drinks one beer every day and his neighbour who drinks nothing 6 days a week and pisses it up on Saturday.................are you going to differentiate between the two. Go after the law breakers more so than the "sinners" and hit them with heavy fines. Before anyone gets too shrill, that is not a perfect solution either............................. nothing is. It's not a fair world, suck it up and live with it.
 
taxslave
Free Thinker
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

Income tax is good (much as I hate it) it taxes money at the source. Tax on luxury purchases probably isn't a bad idea too. Sin taxes may be good, they CAN help to repair/offset the damage done by the sin. They should be directed accordingly.

INcome tax is not fair. It places an unfair burden on those that produce the most.
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

INcome tax is not fair. It places an unfair burden on those that produce the most.

Not in every place. Inthe United States, it's the Middle Class that bears the unfair burden and taxes for the rich have been reduced repeatedly ... by Reagan, Bush and now, supposedly, by Trump.
 
selfsame
#20
I prefer no tax; what are such taxes they impose on people? Only the Zakat and the one fifth tax in the Quran, which is taken out of the surplus of the income after excluding the necessary expenditure for the livelihood.

All the rest will be the transgression on people and will be harmful.
E.g. if they impose a tax on shops, the shop keepers will increase their prices so as to compete with the tax. Hence the public will be harmed by such tax.

Therefore, all taxes are harmful and the transgression of the government on the individual.
I read that the Mahdi will remove the taxes from people.
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by selfsame View Post

I prefer no tax; what are such taxes they impose on people? Only the Zakat and the one fifth tax in the Quran, which is taken out of the surplus of the income after excluding the necessary expenditure for the livelihood.

All the rest will be the transgression on people and will be harmful.
E.g. if they impose a tax on shops, the shop keepers will increase their prices so as to compete with the tax. Hence the public will be harmed by such tax.

Therefore, all taxes are harmful and the transgression of the government on the individual.
I read that the Mahdi will remove the taxes from people.

Taxes ...a Zionist plot.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
+1
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

INcome tax is not fair. It places an unfair burden on those that produce the most.


Do you really think the highest paid produce the most? Have you walked past a construction site where there's five guys standing around in white shirts and ties while one poor bastard is down in the hole on the end of a Fox #2? I'd say that they are many "highest paids" who don't really do "f**k all". I worked under some of them. A lot of them are solely paid for their signature!
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
+1
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

Do you really think the highest paid produce the most? Have you walked past a construction site where there's five guys standing around in white shirts and ties while one poor bastard is down in the hole on the end of a Fox #2? I'd say that they are many "highest paids" who don't really do "f**k all". I worked under some of them. A lot of them are solely paid for their signature!

There are a lot of super, super rich people who do sweet F-all and have done so for generations.

What has Paris Hilton produced lately?
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
-1
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

There are a lot of super, super rich people who do sweet F-all and have done so for generations.


The term "con artist" comes to mind.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#25
The terminal tax, the last breath, it takes everything
 
Danbones
Free Thinker
#26
its hard to escape the thumb tacks
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#27
No it isn't, you just have to present as jelly or slime, any incoherant substance really, something able to ooze arround the barbs and spikes.
 
Dixie Cup
Conservative
+2
#28
I would prefer neither - a Consumption tax on everything but food and clothing would be more fair I think......


JMHO
 
Machjo
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by Dixie Cup View Post

I would prefer neither - a Consumption tax on everything but food and clothing would be more fair I think......


JMHO

Or food, clothing, and shelter. And given that statistically around 50% of Canada's working-age population is functionally literate in neither official language, how about scrapping taxes on books too.

Quote: Originally Posted by davesmom View Post

The question you ask here are what I mean when I say the government has its nose stuck into all matters that none of its business.
This is supposed to be a 'free' country, yet authorities have the audacity to try and manage our private lives.
Everyone is supposed to be equal yet authorities set it up so that those who do what they are told/advised to do get different treatment.
By social engineering, government has tries to herd us all into one pen like good little sheep.


It is nobody's business, much less government's, whether a person walks, drives or takes public transit to work. We supposedly pay taxes so that we can walk, drive or have public transit at our disposal because government has done its job providing the necessary amenities ie, safe walkways, public parking, train/bus service.


It is nobody's business if we drink, smoke, or what we do. People do things that are more dangerous than smoking and drinking. Amateur hobbyists cut their hand off with jig saws, Druggies overdose, Fat people don't exercise and eat unhealthy foods. People have indiscriminate sex and get STDs/AIDS.
Our health care is supposed to look after EVERYONE. A doctor has no business asking a person how he got hurt/sick before he treats them. His job is to treat people, NOT to judge them.


It is nobody's business how much money a person has or what he does with it. It is nobody's business whether we give to charity or not. We cannot claim 'equality for all' if we are going to dictate things like this. Yet that's what government does and many people agree with it.


The only truly way for us to have democracy/free country is for government to get out of people's personal lives. One tax for all. a 10% tax is only $4000 . to the man who earns $40,000 as opposed to $100,000 to the man who makes $1,000,000. Quite a difference and should level the playing field adequately for government to pay for its mandated responsibilities. IF government did only what government is supposed to do!

So in other words, the government should provide no incentive for a person to take better care of his health or clog the roads less? When cities suffer traffic jams, it's best to just tax everyone including those who contribute little to it so as to build ever more roads? When health care costs skyrocket, it's best to just tax everyone, including healthy eaters, equally so as to subsidize the smokers, drinkers, etc.?

Isn't that a greater form of social engineering than a more user-pay system? A user-pay system would approximate the free market somewhat more closely, no?
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
+2
#30
When you look at the great scheme of things, you start to wonder what taxes have really solved over the years. Back about the end of W.W.1 a tax on income of about 4% was brought in as TEMPORARY measure to provide some badly needed cash. Well, we've seen how temporary that is, while a bunch of totally useless fat cats thrive.