What taxes do you prefer?

[Curious Cdn]

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]

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]

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]

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]

The terminal tax, the last breath, it takes everything

 

[Danbones]

its hard to escape the thumb tacks

 

[darkbeaver]

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]

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


JMHO

 

[Machjo]

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.

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]

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.

 

[Machjo]

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.

Once the federal debt is paid off, I think income tax and any kind of VAT (like the GST for example) should be scrapped and replaced with more user-pay taxes. You use it, you pay for it.

I'm not saying let's not care about the poor, but any kind of wealth tax ought to be moderate, with most other taxes being more user-pay.

Davesmon mentioned in a post above about HIV/AIDs for example. Yes, it's expensive, and for that reason, making things like fornication a fineable offense with the fine doubling for each repetition of the offense can legitimately be viewed as another form of user-pay policy. Such a person is more likely to become a single parent or contract HIV for example This does not mean we don't help him, but at least we could discourage him from putting himself in such a situation in the first place.

 

[JLM]

Once the federal debt is paid off, I think income tax and any kind of VAT (like the GST for example) should be scrapped and replaced with more user-pay taxes. You use it, you pay for it.

I'm not saying let's not care about the poor, but any kind of wealth tax ought to be moderate, with most other taxes being more user-pay.

Davesmon mentioned in a post above about HIV/AIDs for example. Yes, it's expensive, and for that reason, making things like fornication a fineable offense with the fine doubling for each repetition of the offense can legitimately be viewed as another form of user-pay policy. Such a person is more likely to become a single parent or contract HIV for example This does not mean we don't help him, but at least we could discourage him from putting himself in such a situation in the first place.

Nah, can't see fining fornication and I wouldn't even try to think of how to define it (once you address any of it you have to address all of it) and I detest laws that can't be enforced. If Old A$$hole Trudeau ever did anything positive, it was probably keeping his nose out of the bedrooms of the country.

 

[davesmom]

Once the federal debt is paid off, I think income tax and any kind of VAT (like the GST for example) should be scrapped and replaced with more user-pay taxes. You use it, you pay for it.

I'm not saying let's not care about the poor, but any kind of wealth tax ought to be moderate, with most other taxes being more user-pay.

Davesmon mentioned in a post above about HIV/AIDs for example. Yes, it's expensive, and for that reason, making things like fornication a fineable offense with the fine doubling for each repetition of the offense can legitimately be viewed as another form of user-pay policy. Such a person is more likely to become a single parent or contract HIV for example This does not mean we don't help him, but at least we could discourage him from putting himself in such a situation in the first place.

Morality and common sense cannot be legislated. There will always be irresponsible and just plain stupid people. I think people should be accountable for the results of their behavior, 'If you do the crime, you do the time'.
Government has stepped into people's personal private lives by protecting us from ourselves and paying the consequences for irresponsible behaviors and it isn't working.
Everything the government takes control of eventually goes bad. When you need a specific service you hire a professional in that specific field to do the job. Not so with government. What you get with government is career politicians trying to manage in areas that they have no practical and possibly no academic knowledge of.
We need health care professionals running the health care system. Educators running the educational system. Financiers running the economy, Business professionals running the Corporations. Correctional workers running the justice system. Etc., etc., etc. All without governmental rules and regulations But what we have is politicians running everything with nothing to guide them but their ideology, making rules and regulations that are unnecessary and ridiculous. The professionals in each field would know what rules and regulations are necessary. They don't need ideologues calling the shots.

 

[Machjo]

Morality and common sense cannot be legislated. There will always be irresponsible and just plain stupid people. I think people should be accountable for the results of their behavior, 'If you do the crime, you do the time'.
Government has stepped into people's personal private lives by protecting us from ourselves and paying the consequences for irresponsible behaviors and it isn't working.
Everything the government takes control of eventually goes bad. When you need a specific service you hire a professional in that specific field to do the job. Not so with government. What you get with government is career politicians trying to manage in areas that they have no practical and possibly no academic knowledge of.
We need health care professionals running the health care system. Educators running the educational system. Financiers running the economy, Business professionals running the Corporations. Correctional workers running the justice system. Etc., etc., etc. All without governmental rules and regulations But what we have is politicians running everything with nothing to guide them but their ideology, making rules and regulations that are unnecessary and ridiculous. The professionals in each field would know what rules and regulations are necessary. They don't need ideologues calling the shots.

And we need tax experts running the taxation system. There is nothing wrong with significantly reducing overall taxes and then replacing them with taxes that target vices. we have such taxes already in the form of cigarette taxes and such. I'm just suggesting that we raise those taxes further while reducing general taxes, while still ensuring that the government collects enough in taxes to pay the debt over time. This means reducing government spending too.
I wold not be totally opposed to two-tiered healthcare to boot. Research shows it to work better than one-tiered.

 

[JLM]

I would not be totally opposed to two-tiered healthcare to boot. Research shows it to work better than one-tiered.

I don't think there is any doubt that two-tiered is better than single tiered. What is wrong with reducing the cost and the line ups to serving the severely ill and financially challenged. If a wealthy person wants to take the pressure off and reduce the misery what's wrong with that?

 

[taxslave]

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.

The poor paid no taxes under any of them yet use the most government services.

The middle class are the producers for the most part.

Once the federal debt is paid off, I think income tax and any kind of VAT (like the GST for example) should be scrapped and replaced with more user-pay taxes. You use it, you pay for it.

I'm not saying let's not care about the poor, but any kind of wealth tax ought to be moderate, with most other taxes being more user-pay.

Davesmon mentioned in a post above about HIV/AIDs for example. Yes, it's expensive, and for that reason, making things like fornication a fineable offense with the fine doubling for each repetition of the offense can legitimately be viewed as another form of user-pay policy. Such a person is more likely to become a single parent or contract HIV for example This does not mean we don't help him, but at least we could discourage him from putting himself in such a situation in the first place.

VATs are user pay taxes. That is the whole point of them.

 

[JLM]

The poor paid no taxes under any of them yet use the most government services.

That might be a predictable result of a society that supports its least able. Mind you it should be limited to a "hand up" NOT a "hand out".

 

[Curious Cdn]

The poor paid no taxes under any of them yet use the most government services.
.

You've got to be REALLY, REALLY poor to not pay any taxes. If you put them in a cider press and flatten them out, you will wring no spare change out of them. If you don't provide a minimum of services to them, they may end up preying on you, as their survival needs will force them to do so. It's a good deal for you. It's a good deal for rich people, too except that we are led by rich people for the most part and, of course, they are going to give themselves a better deal. The Middle Class is starting to fail, having had a little too much harvested from them by Capitalists and Socialists alike.

 

[taxslave]

The thing everyone is missing here is that income tax is not the biggest problem. The real problem is multiple levels of government and even public utilities have been given the right to tax with zero oversite other than the ballot box.In the Vancouver area the public transit corp gets to tax gas so that people that drive are forced to finance transportation for those that don't. Except for those that live close to the boarder who skip across to buy cheap gas.

You've got to be REALLY, REALLY poor to not pay any taxes. If you put them in a cider press and flatten them out, you will wring no spare change out of them. If you don't provide a minimum of services to them, they may end up preying on you, as their survival needs will force them to do. It's a good deal for you. It's a good deal for rich people, too except that we are led by rich people for the most part and, of course, they are going to give themselves a better deal. The Middle Class is starting to fail, having had a little too much harvested from them by Capitalists and Socialists alibis.

Better go check the stats.

 

[Machjo]

The poor paid no taxes under any of them yet use the most government services.

The middle class are the producers for the most part.



VATs are user pay taxes. That is the whole point of them.

How is a VAT user-pay? For example, if I go for a hair cut, I might be contributing to the extraction of metals from the ground to build scissors and clippers and to the consumption of hydro power for those clippers. but that forms a fraction of the money I pay for my hair cut. The vast majority of it is just going towards the barber's profit.

If I fill my car up with that for the same amount of money, nearly 100% of it goes towards the extraction of the resource from the ground and will contribute to adding to traffic on the roads and to urban pollution. Why should the haircut and the gas be charged the same tax?

With a tax on non-renewable resources, then I'd pay barely no tax on the innocuous haircut and a high tax on the gas. Is that not more fair?