Liberals now pulling away from Cons into majority territory

[Colpy]

oh my! Harper Conservtive social engineering... who would have thought you'd go there! As for your stoopid comment purposely falsely stating what I said... I never said benefits should be the same across the board. What I did say, what I am saying, is the majority of Canadians should realize "some benefit"... they shouldn't be excluded as they are now under the Harper Conservative income-splitting proposal. Capeesh, Cappy?



you looked it up... where? Pardon me if I'm more inclined to believe the analysis coming from C.D. Howe... or the Broadbent Institute. You can't slag both of those since one is 'right-leaning', right?

WTF are you talking about??

There are four million two parent families in Canada. There will be a disparity in earnings in each family, therefore each of those families will benefit is some small way.

As for your contention that one parent would need to make $100,000 and the other nothing to realize the full $2000 benefit, THAT is ludicrous on the face of it, I don't care WHO came up with it.

Canadian income tax rates for Individuals - current and previous years

A person making $64,000 transfers $11,000 to a non-earning spouse, which just takes up her non-taxable $11,000 deduction, saving them the 22% tax he would have paid, or $2420.....then capped at $2000. Obviously this works at a lower earning than $64,000. I just couldn't be bothered doing all the math.

So much for the $100,000 BS.

 

[captain morgan]

Except those pooruns who aren't self-responsible according to you, are still going to receive some benefit, however minimal.

So they are getting some reward even though they didn't 'earn it'.

Stop the pity-party already.

Social safety nets exist for all... This is about your inability to support a smart program solely based on the notion that it was the Harper gvt that has tabled the program.

You're not an unintelligent person Flossy, but when it comes to partisan bias against Harper, you morph into a full-on tard

 

[mentalfloss]

Okay, so you can't justify your fabricated ethical proposal.

Good to know.

 

[taxslave]

no - I'm against an inequitable proposal that doesn't benefit all Canadians... how quaint of you to be so dismissive of, apparently to you, the great unwashed middle/lower-class.

Welfare does not benefit anyone making over 100G a year but we get to pay for it. Neither does the GST credit,How is that equitable?

 

[captain morgan]

Okay, so you can't justify your fabricated ethical proposal.

Good to know.

I see that you have no response to the above, especially in light of your selecting the option on personal responsibility that suggests being held accountable for ones decisions/actions.

Please, continue on with the piousness and pity-party

 

[mentalfloss]

I never said I disagreed with the policy.

Only that it doesn't satisfy the talking point that it benefits Canadians in general or that it fits into your ideological view of "personal responsibility".

 

[taxslave]

Okay, so you can't justify your fabricated ethical proposal.

Good to know.

How is it ethical that a person that makes 100G+ a year pays 40000 in income tax but a person making 11G pays no income tax?

 

[captain morgan]

How is it ethical that a person that makes 100G+ a year pays 40000 in income tax but a person making 11G pays no income tax?

The Flossy's of the world demand a form of 1-sided equality that sees gvt making winners and losers.

Generally that effort is accomplished by screaming like a scalded cat about 'fair share' (conveniently defined by his own subjective judgement) and when convenient, changes gears on the dollar-for-dollar analysis when it benefits him (and/or his hobbyhorse) the most.

It's a shell game to be sure

 

[mentalfloss]

How is it ethical that a person that makes 100G+ a year pays 40000 in income tax but a person making 11G pays no income tax?

Sounds like utilitarianism to me.

Which is a widely accepted ethical philosophy.

 

[captain morgan]

Dictators, mass murderers and Fascists employ their own unique philosophical positions that they believe are widely held as well.

 

[taxslave]

Sounds like utilitarianism to me.

Which is a widely accepted ethical philosophy.

Sounds like discrimination to me since it is forced, not voluntary.

 

[captain morgan]

Sounds like discrimination to me since it is forced, not voluntary.

Involuntary sharing

 

[mentalfloss]

Sounds like discrimination to me since it is forced, not voluntary.

Are you saying the Harper government is discriminatory for not giving significant tax cuts to higher income earners?

 

[petros]

I never said I disagreed with the policy.

Only that it doesn't satisfy the talking point that it benefits Canadians in general or that it fits into your ideological view of "personal responsibility".

Lightening the load on 4 Million families, lightens the load on all of us. Just a couple hundred bucks here and there reduces the use of Social programs straight across the board.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

How is it ethical that a person that makes 100G+ a year pays 40000 in income tax but a person making 11G pays no income tax?

By the same ethics that tax luxuries higher than necessities? Why is the sales tax on food in many states lower than the sales tax on cars costing over $60,000?

 

[petros]

How is it ethical that a person that makes 100G+ a year pays 40000 in income tax but a person making 11G pays no income tax?

That's off. I paid $38K and change on $122K. Average combine tax rate is 34% so $100K is $34K in taxes before credits.

 

[captain morgan]

That's all dependent on the respective provincial income tax rates

 

[DaSleeper]

The writer of the article he was quoting is simply and completely wrong in saying that one partner would have to make 100K and the other no income at all in order to save the $2000...
Before income splitting for seniors...I had my tax deductions set up so that at tax time the refund or tax payable would run about $150 one way or the other depending on how many rrsp's were cashed in,
My splitable pension is a bit less than one third the quoted 100k amount and we get about $300. back at tax time....give or take a few hundred dollars...
As soon as I saw that bullshyte in the article and a few other thing that were completely over the top I quit reading it....

I just came back and noticed the typo...
It's $3000.00 we get back in refund.....

 

[petros]

BC can't be that much higher than SK. We've had hefty cuts but not that hefty.

I just came back and noticed the typo...
It's $3000.00 we get back in refund.....

Was wondering why so low.

 

[captain morgan]

BC can't be that much higher than SK. We've had hefty cuts but not that hefty.

Can't speak to Sask or BC, but in AB, it's a flat 10%... Maybe the difference you see incorporates some recognition of the various additional taxes in BC