What are your 'fringe' political ideas?
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
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.)
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.
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.)
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.
Yep, their strength lay in other disciplines. Shakespeare himself wasn't technical.
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.
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.
Quite right, Niflmir, the rich will get a big tax cut. Now, we will do very well out of flat tax, so personally I won’t mind a flat tax. However, middle class taxes must increase to balance out the cuts for the rich.
I can just imagine a politician running for an election in USA or in Canada on the platform of reducing taxes for the rich and increasing them for the middle class (the poor are not affected either way). He may as well concede the election right then and end all the suspense.
Even when Republicans were in full control of everything, from 2000 to 2006, the idea did not come up for serious discussion in the House or the Senate (through there were a few proponents, all of them conservative Republicans, as can be expected).
Flat tax is a curiosity, a subject for idle discussion, nothing more.
Quite right, Niflmir, the rich will get a big tax cut. Now, we will do very well out of flat tax, so personally I won’t mind a flat tax. However, middle class taxes must increase to balance out the cuts for the rich.
I can just imagine a politician running for an election in USA or in Canada on the platform of reducing taxes for the rich and increasing them for the middle class (the poor are not affected either way). He may as well concede the election right then and end all the suspense.
Even when Republicans were in full control of everything, from 2000 to 2006, the idea did not come up for serious discussion in the House or the Senate (through there were a few proponents, all of them conservative Republicans, as can be expected).
Flat tax is a curiosity, a subject for idle discussion, nothing more.
Likely, its similar. The basis for our tax system is piecewise implemented and this is what makes it complicated. First you compute the amount of tax on the first $50k, then you compute using a different rate on the next $32k, then a third rate and sometimes a fourth.
It would be a lot simpler if they used a simple formula: input your income our comes your tax rate. You could compute your taxes in two lines.
Well, this is assuming you don't have any deductions due to business expenses, moving expenses and so on. Then things get really messy as they try to turn it into a rat maze to obfuscate how to get money back.
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.
Are you sure about that? I'd love to see some numbers/ a link to back up this statement: I'm not trying to call you a liar, I'd just like to see the math laid out because this surprises me. Alberta has paid more per capita in transfer payments to confederation than any other province over the past 2 decades or so but thats also because the average wages were higher and the overall health of the economy was better than most other provinces.
Relating this to hourly paid people where overtime pushes them into a different bracket it can be sort of true: their real per hr income may drop even if their net is higher thus the return on time is less for them thus it is a loss. It can also translate into less income on their paycheque but they should be able to recoup that loss on their refund.
I honestly think (like what Curiosity was alluding to) this is why people talk about flat taxes: just the complication factor. Its obscene that so many members of the public are so intimidated by our taxation systems that we rely on the H&R Blocks of the world to the extent we do... it creates a false industry for bean counters, that really adds no value to our economy.
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.
I wonder if the highly developed Cunnuck can do that? This thread is supposed to be about " fringe political ideas" but I don't see many here. There is a very good chance that we will have fringe politics in the near future wheather or not we like it. Suspension of civil liberties, recruiting for national socializing type programes and rampant violent anti-other movements designed to provide ready made enemies selected on an ad hoc basis depending on the ruling elites whims.
ABRACADABRA SOME FRINGE THINKERS
52,000 Swiss banking clients guilty of US tax-evasion
Tags:
Of course, true to form the banking stooges at the New York Times bury this news as a sidenote in a report that carries the unassuming title: Head of UBS Investment Bank Unit Steps Down. They play it down as the fourth such resignation in the last 18 months.
But, the circumstances surrounding his resignation are anything but common. ...This is BIG.
Americans may finally have a chance to make a substantial number of our country's so-called "elite" pay for their multiple crimes -- for a change -- without having to overthrow the government and chop off their heads.
Webmaster's Commentary:
Dream ON! The elites will just find some way to avoid paying or dump the bill on the people as they have been doing for the last 6 months
We are talking about switching from a progressive tax system to a flat tax system, so the comparison of rates makes sense and the comparison of services makes little. All that matters is absolute values of dollars. Since you would not move to another province the day after the government changes tax systems. You would simply be taxed more and have less money in the same province.
Difference between bracket 1 and bracket 2 in the federal system is 7% difference on up to $38,832, which is a difference of up to $2718.24, an order of magnitude above what you suggest. Do your homework.
People don't talk about subjective value of their overtime dollars with me, they say, "With the increased tax rate, I actually lost money," which is untrue and illustrates the poor understanding of the tax system that I outlined.
Equal in dollar is not equal in value, which was your first point. Which you have now flip-flopped on. While one can say "All other things being equal," for an individual with a specific income comparing tax systems (because we are talking about changing systems, so everything else would in fact be equal), one cannot say this for two individuals with markedly different incomes. For these two individuals many things are different and the value of a dollar is genuinely different. There is a similar thing with fines, if everyone pays $200 for a speeding ticket, someone making millions a year hardly learns a lesson. Equal is not the same as fair.
Progressive taxes are fairer. Period.