I've often wondered, how much money does a pisspot actually hold?
rotflmffaoit depends on two things- the size of the pisspot and the denomination of the bills.
Piss was worth something in the old days.
without the help of the first nations people, Europeans would have had a hell of a time making it past the mouth of the St. Lawrence.
Niflmir
Thanks for a reasonable response - I'm gonna copy yours and chew on it today - see if I can understand how it might apply in the US - the tax questionnaire itself is a nightmare for the mathematically challenged.
A flat tax compared to our current system is a bad idea unless you make more than about $150k per year. Look at the numbers, you pay more in Alberta (only flat tax province) than Ontario unless you are making more than that amount.
Really, you can just think about progressive tax rates as a flat tax rate with a deduction when you are not making millions of dollars a year. Then it is clear that if you are not above the threshold you are better off with progressive tax rates which give you tax breaks, not the rich people. (Unless you are rich, then invert what I am saying.)
I don't know how many times I have heard people claim that they lose money because they are pushed into a different tax bracket due to overtime or bonuses. It doesn't happen, the new tax bracket only affects the money made over the threshold: all other things equal, if you are in a higher tax bracket it is impossible for you to net less than someone in a lower bracket.
A flat tax compared to our current system is a bad idea unless you make more than about $150k per year. Look at the numbers, you pay more in Alberta (only flat tax province) than Ontario unless you are making more than that amount
The problem with taxes is that people don't understand them (they are unnecessarily complicated if the government's intention was fairness). I don't know how many times I have heard people claim that they lose money because they are pushed into a different tax bracket due to overtime or bonuses. It doesn't happen, the new tax bracket only affects the money made over the threshold: all other things equal, if you are in a higher tax bracket it is impossible for you to net less than someone in a lower bracket.
It wasn't a mis-communication and I am aware of what aboriginals had accomplished 500 years ago. The comment still stands. They had not developed much beyond cave men, especially when compared to Europeans.
Acctually they developed just as much as anybody else but in different areas. The population you're alluding to was a remnant already ravaged by pandemic and cultural disaster, so don't be so hasty with the white propaganda.
Many if not all of the early settlers were culls from europe who nobody was going to miss, it would have been hard to call them developed in the modern sence, which dosen't make sence anyway.
Before anyone jumps to conclusions about what aboriginals did or didn't know, there was news item years ago about an Eskimo who had never been south of the Arctic and who had never seen a watch before, took one apart that wasn't working and repaired it..........so you just can't never tell.
Before anyone jumps to conclusions about what aboriginals did or didn't know, there was news item years ago about an Eskimo who had never been south of the Arctic and who had never seen a watch before, took one apart that wasn't working and repaired it..........so you just can't never tell.
This analysis only works (and is true) if the tax dollars raised per capita are the same.... When you compare the level of services ($$'s per capita) as well as the depth of existing taxes (ie PST?), I think that you'll find that the flat tax jurisdictions are far less expensive to both the individual as well as the corporate entity.
The other side of this coin relates to the perpetual and ineffectual campaign promises that seek to 'reduce taxes to the most vulnerable' (that being the lowest/lower brackets). Offering a 1-2% reduction in the marginal taxable income between no tax rate and the next level might represent a few hundred dollars... That said, the tax breaks offered to the lower brackets are really smoke and mirrors. Unless it is an across the board break on something like PST/GST (therefore benefiting the upper brackets as well), it is essentially meaningless.
It does happen when the individual in question compares the the value of the time spent vs the social/family cost vs the actual dollar value of the money that they are left with. Costs associated with this extend farther than just a debit/credit analysis. The inability of one in a higher bracket to net less than someone in a lower bracket is true (generally speaking). However, the broader issue relates to the value of the marginal value of the increase in the amount of work or risk required to generate that additional income.
If the system is designed to penalize those efforts that lead to higher productivity or innovation, then there is limited motivation to pursue those ends.
The flat tax system treats everyone equally. Period.