Do the Rich Pay a Lot of Taxes?
- Thread starter Toro
- Start date
he rich have been getting a lot richer, even after the imposition of income taxes. We ought to be thinking seriously about the social and economic problems that will be posed by the emergence of a new plutocracy.
----------------------------------------------------------Bitwhys-----------------------------------------------
That first part about the rich getting a lot richer even after the imposition of income taxes
is very true.
It's a fact.
What now is in real and sincere dispute is what to do about that.
Income group % of federal personalincome taxes paid
............................................1990.. ........2002
50% with lowest incomes..............6.7%..........4.4%
40% with intermediate incomes.....47.3%........43.0%
10% with highest incomes............46.0%........52.6%
----------------------------------------------------------Bitwhys-----------------------------------------------
That first part about the rich getting a lot richer even after the imposition of income taxes
is very true.
It's a fact.
What now is in real and sincere dispute is what to do about that.
Income group % of federal personalincome taxes paid
............................................1990.. ........2002
50% with lowest incomes..............6.7%..........4.4%
40% with intermediate incomes.....47.3%........43.0%
10% with highest incomes............46.0%........52.6%
Last edited:
we could probably start by not using dollar signs to figure out what needs fixing.
we could probably start by not using dollar signs to figure out what needs fixing.
----------------------------------BitWhys------------------------------------------------------------
We won't be able to get away with the Dollar Signs because that's one of the first priorities
of existence in social science Mazlo's Heiarchy of Needs.
However, as Jesus said, Man does not live by Bread Alone.
I would say ultimately you are right BitWhys, but I would like to translate what you posted
into something with a little more focus.
We should encourage a CULTURE.
It, culture, above all else is the zeitgeist that rules even the ruler.
It is stronger than an ephemeral vote.
It has peer pressure.
It is more effective than laws requiring fairness.
It rules the rulers.
We should encourage a culture that is less greedy, more helpful.
With capitalism as the engine, culture can be the distribution, making people realize such
a combination is greater than socialism, central planning, government by fiat.
----------------------------------BitWhys------------------------------------------------------------
We won't be able to get away with the Dollar Signs because that's one of the first priorities
of existence in social science Mazlo's Heiarchy of Needs.
However, as Jesus said, Man does not live by Bread Alone.
I would say ultimately you are right BitWhys, but I would like to translate what you posted
into something with a little more focus.
We should encourage a CULTURE.
It, culture, above all else is the zeitgeist that rules even the ruler.
It is stronger than an ephemeral vote.
It has peer pressure.
It is more effective than laws requiring fairness.
It rules the rulers.
We should encourage a culture that is less greedy, more helpful.
With capitalism as the engine, culture can be the distribution, making people realize such
a combination is greater than socialism, central planning, government by fiat.
unfortunately. also unfortunate is the likely truth that relying exclusively on constitutionalism for balance ultimately turns the same old same old into an ineffective paper chase. the constantly changing tension between capitalism and socialism isn't the problem. its the solution.
If one would consult Adams again in his 1776 Wealth of Nations book on Laissez-faire, one would be very surprised to find out how much he condemns a culture of greed
and that it is a seed that kills the SILENT HAND that creates wealth.
and that it is a seed that kills the SILENT HAND that creates wealth.
Well, yeah, Jim. I'm pretty sure everyone recognizes that the love of wealth is a root of evil. lol
Oh lord there goes my focus at work today thinking about all the neat stuff written on this topic!
Thanks fellas!
Thanks fellas!
There are a few points to this.
First, the study I posted was US, not Canadian.
Second, it didn't conclude that the tax system has become more progressive. Instead, what it pointed out was that it was progressive.
Third, the underlying premise of the CCA piece is not incorrect. The distribution of taxes should be measured against the distribution of income.
Fourth, the US study includes state and federal taxes, which encompasses most of the tax paid in the United States.
Fifth, sorry, I just don't believe that someone making 100 grand in Canada is only paying 30-35% of their income in taxes, not when you include all taxes. Don't believe it at all. I've done an analysis of the income tax I'd be paying in Canada, and its a fair bit more than that. In Florida, I calculated my total tax bill - income, sales, capital gains, dividend, property, excise, etc. - at about 25% of income, and that is substantially less than what I would have paid in Ontario.
The wealthy get every deduction imaginable so that their incomes are sheltered from taxes. It is no strange coincidence that they get billions in taxpayer paid stadiums for their sports teams, that their multi-billion dollar incomes overseas are completely tax exempt, and that the corporations they own often are tax free as well.
Buffett, Gates, and Soros benefit from these gifts every bit as much as do the Bechtels, Halliburtons, and he rest of the Military Industrial Complex. Soros may be trying to buy influence in the USA but he needs to go a long way before he matches the influence of that evil MIC.
Whatever. It doesn't bother me that folks find ways to avoid paying taxes when they're paying most of the taxes collected anyway.
In the spirit of this thread, I sat down and calculated the actual income tax rates (on taxable income) for all Canadian citizens living in all provinces, excluding Quebec. For anybody who is interested, I can give a maple spreadsheet that has all the details or I can calculate individual tax rates given a taxable income and a province of Canada.
Total tax rate for a person living in Ontario having $100,000 of taxable income (using 2007 rates: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tax/individuals/faq/taxrates-e.html)
Total Tax Rate = .29242404
I include that many decimal places so that you can count your pennies. For people who like percentages, that's 29.242404%
Now, my father lives in Alberta, and I think he makes about $70,000 a year if he gets a lot of overtime. That means his tax rate is 28.547757%, interestingly enough, because Alberta has a flat tax rate on all income at 10% your low income earnings are taxed at a higher rate than in other provinces, this means that, living in Alberta and making $100,000 a year, your tax rate will be 30.60915% exactly. From which we see, only the richest Albertans get taxed less than their equal earning counterparts in Ontario.
I am not a big fan of income to begin with, but I can show that if you take the high income tax rate formula (the tax rate as a function of income for the highest earners) and applied it to everybody (excepting the low income earners), that people who earn between $40,000 and $120,000 a year are currently being overtaxed by as much as 3.5%. And that if we treated the low income earners as we treated the high income earners, we would actually be giving them money, which is why I said "excepting the low income earners".
Just food for thought.
Niflmir
I hate to interject a question when the thread is moving along but why is Quebec excluded - are they treated as a separate nation within Canada insofar as their taxation is computed?
I hate to interject a question when the thread is moving along but why is Quebec excluded - are they treated as a separate nation within Canada insofar as their taxation is computed?
That really puzzled me too. I looked for the data for their tax rates, but it wasn't as well organized and I couldn't find what I was looking for. It seems they have their own Revenue agency and don't file through CRA, which I think the other provinces and territories do. I suppose if I had dug deeper I could have found the numbers.
Nflmir
Thanks - please don't trouble - you have given us much research information already -
Quebec's status is a conundrum to me. It seems to be regarded as a separate entity supported by Canada, within Canada, and not a contributing part - but more of a tourist attraction like the royal family.
I know that sounds rude - but viewing it from afar now - I see it in a different light than I used to - and I wonder what Quebec actually does for Canada in its' separatist ideology.
To separate usually means to be independent and self-sustaining and I hardly think
Quebec is such.
[and now I have wandered off topic - apologies]
Thanks - please don't trouble - you have given us much research information already -
Quebec's status is a conundrum to me. It seems to be regarded as a separate entity supported by Canada, within Canada, and not a contributing part - but more of a tourist attraction like the royal family.
I know that sounds rude - but viewing it from afar now - I see it in a different light than I used to - and I wonder what Quebec actually does for Canada in its' separatist ideology.
To separate usually means to be independent and self-sustaining and I hardly think
Quebec is such.
[and now I have wandered off topic - apologies]