Canadians Among Least-Taxed People In Developed World
- Thread starter tay
- Start date
Just saying that they try very hard to appear swedish so why should i care if they are actually dutch
I guess you didn't realize that the Netherlands is also socialist. And I notice that you completely ignored my examples of US companies that have chosen to pretend that they are not American for tax purposes. Your argument was weak to begin with and has gotten even weaker with your inability to understand that the location of company HQs often has little to do with nationality and a lot to do with tax advantages or even a more central location. In the case of IKEA, the Netherlands allows the company to be registered as a "not for profit corporation." This is obviously a tax dodge and has nothing to do with the company's actual nationality. If you have actually researched IKEA properly you would know that it plans to open another holding company in Switzerland, no doubt also for tax-dodging purposes. BTW there are no IKEA manufacturing facilities in the Netherlands and there never have been.
A better way to close tax loopholes — reduce incentive for people to incorporate
The ideal tax policy would tax all income at the same rate, no matter how it was earned or to whom it was paid, such that there would be no reward for ‘tax planning’
Of course, whenever you hear this kind of braying, it’s usually a sign of an ox being gored: the extra tax of which they complain is tax they are now avoiding — tax that others, earning the same income, do pay. A federal discussion paper cites the example of two families, each with $220,000 in gross income, one of which pays $35,000 less in tax than the other by virtue of “sprinkling.” It’s perfectly legal, of course, but it’s hard to call it fair.
Mind you, the same logic argued for allowing income splitting between spouses, which the Liberals cancelled — two couples earning the same combined household income should pay the same rate of tax, rather than the single-earner couple paying substantially more than its dual-earner neighbours. If it is encouraging that the Liberals have now discovered the concept of horizontal equity, it is dismaying that their critics have forgotten it.
Hilariously, many of the more specific critiques of the federal proposals actually make the case for them. A financial columnist complained: “They call into question the purpose, really, of having a corporation.” Another said the changes would “destroy tax planning as we know it.” My favourite was the political pundit who fumed, incredulously, that “Morneau and his bureaucrats seem to want all income taxed at the same level.”
Well, yes — and yes, and yes. The ideal tax policy would indeed tax all income at the same rate, no matter how it was earned or to whom it was paid, such that there would be no reward for “tax planning,” including incorporation. We want people to make financial decisions based on the real economic costs and benefits of each option, not the tax goodies attached.
A particular objection seems to be that income earned by a small business, even one that looks an awful lot like a person, should not be treated the same as salaries and wages, because of the allegedly greater risks the former takes on than a mere employee. Whether that is true or not — there are often risks associated with taking a job just as there are with investing in a business — the larger point is that this is no concern of the tax system. Again: the return on risk is supposed to be the return, not the tax preference. Society does not benefit from paying people to take on risks they would not otherwise assume, whether the payment takes the form of a subsidy or a special tax rate.
more
Andrew Coyne: A better way to close tax loopholes
The ideal tax policy would tax all income at the same rate, no matter how it was earned or to whom it was paid, such that there would be no reward for ‘tax planning’
Of course, whenever you hear this kind of braying, it’s usually a sign of an ox being gored: the extra tax of which they complain is tax they are now avoiding — tax that others, earning the same income, do pay. A federal discussion paper cites the example of two families, each with $220,000 in gross income, one of which pays $35,000 less in tax than the other by virtue of “sprinkling.” It’s perfectly legal, of course, but it’s hard to call it fair.
Mind you, the same logic argued for allowing income splitting between spouses, which the Liberals cancelled — two couples earning the same combined household income should pay the same rate of tax, rather than the single-earner couple paying substantially more than its dual-earner neighbours. If it is encouraging that the Liberals have now discovered the concept of horizontal equity, it is dismaying that their critics have forgotten it.
Hilariously, many of the more specific critiques of the federal proposals actually make the case for them. A financial columnist complained: “They call into question the purpose, really, of having a corporation.” Another said the changes would “destroy tax planning as we know it.” My favourite was the political pundit who fumed, incredulously, that “Morneau and his bureaucrats seem to want all income taxed at the same level.”
Well, yes — and yes, and yes. The ideal tax policy would indeed tax all income at the same rate, no matter how it was earned or to whom it was paid, such that there would be no reward for “tax planning,” including incorporation. We want people to make financial decisions based on the real economic costs and benefits of each option, not the tax goodies attached.
A particular objection seems to be that income earned by a small business, even one that looks an awful lot like a person, should not be treated the same as salaries and wages, because of the allegedly greater risks the former takes on than a mere employee. Whether that is true or not — there are often risks associated with taking a job just as there are with investing in a business — the larger point is that this is no concern of the tax system. Again: the return on risk is supposed to be the return, not the tax preference. Society does not benefit from paying people to take on risks they would not otherwise assume, whether the payment takes the form of a subsidy or a special tax rate.
more
Andrew Coyne: A better way to close tax loopholes