I live in California and don't see a huge difference in what I pay in taxes. As a percentage of my income, I take home almost exactly the same amount as I did in Ontario if you include what I have to pay for private insurance.
Canada Taxes Fair ???
- Thread starter jimmoyer
- Start date
Everyone pays something into the system through sales taxes (GST/PST). What more do you want from really poor people? A token $5 that they might use to buy food? I don't see the point.
The Federal cap on income tax is 35% in the US.
State income tax varies by State. Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming have no income tax. Sales tax varies by State.
State income tax varies by State. Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming have no income tax. Sales tax varies by State.
Taxes are a burden
In my opinion I believe that the current level of taxation for lower income earners is relatively to high. the reason for my argument is that lower income earner recycle more of their income back into the economy. With this in mind if you reduce the tax burden of lower and possibly middle income earners it would stimulate more economic growth and lead to a better financial position overall. High income earners generally save alot of their income and invest it rather then redispurse it in the economy. So I say lower taxes for the lower to middle classes and to maintain the same level of taxation for high income earners.
In my opinion I believe that the current level of taxation for lower income earners is relatively to high. the reason for my argument is that lower income earner recycle more of their income back into the economy. With this in mind if you reduce the tax burden of lower and possibly middle income earners it would stimulate more economic growth and lead to a better financial position overall. High income earners generally save alot of their income and invest it rather then redispurse it in the economy. So I say lower taxes for the lower to middle classes and to maintain the same level of taxation for high income earners.
I just hate the fact that in Britain, by the time I have bought anything, I have been taxed over 50% of every pound that I earn.
I am just in the mid earnings bracket, but for ease here, most of my wages are taxed at 33%, our GST is 17.5%. Thats 50.5% tax. And our fuel is just ridiculous. Over 70% of the price of petrol is tax. For every £50 we put in our cars, only £14 is actually refelctive of the cost of petrol, the rest is tax.
Its a joke.
I am just in the mid earnings bracket, but for ease here, most of my wages are taxed at 33%, our GST is 17.5%. Thats 50.5% tax. And our fuel is just ridiculous. Over 70% of the price of petrol is tax. For every £50 we put in our cars, only £14 is actually refelctive of the cost of petrol, the rest is tax.
Its a joke.
I chose a higher tax state. It's well worth it IMO, even when I had to cough up an extra couple thousand in taxes this past spring.
Like the doubloon nailed to the mast by Captain Ahab in Moby Dick where all the
whalers see some different meaning in the doubloon, so too are all manner of ideas
seen in the stats below:
Income group % of federal personalincome taxes paid
............................................1990.. ........2002
50% with lowest incomes..............6.7%..........4.4%
40% with intermediate incomes.....47.3%........43.0%
10% with highest incomes............46.0%........52.6%
I see the following:
1. This explains why tax cuts always favor the richer.
So when you see the liberals scream against tax cuts for the rich, you might
wonder why the top 10 percent still continue to pay half of all income tax revenue collected.
2. Great disparity in wealth distribution.
Yet this disguises the fact that more and more people are materially richer than before.
That's the irony.
The more who enter the ranks of the richer (draw your line) the more dissatisfaction
occurs. The children of the Great Depression never felt poor. Everyone was poor.
3. Those who complain about any lack in govt services and who pay little into the system
might be right in their criticisms, but how responsible are they ? This point is
admittedly very weak.
4. Should the top 50 pay 100 percent of all income tax revenue collected ???
And should the bottom 50 pay no income tax ? Does getting them out of the tax system
cause any unforseen problems ??? Such as habituating the population on reporting income ?
whalers see some different meaning in the doubloon, so too are all manner of ideas
seen in the stats below:
Income group % of federal personalincome taxes paid
............................................1990.. ........2002
50% with lowest incomes..............6.7%..........4.4%
40% with intermediate incomes.....47.3%........43.0%
10% with highest incomes............46.0%........52.6%
I see the following:
1. This explains why tax cuts always favor the richer.
So when you see the liberals scream against tax cuts for the rich, you might
wonder why the top 10 percent still continue to pay half of all income tax revenue collected.
2. Great disparity in wealth distribution.
Yet this disguises the fact that more and more people are materially richer than before.
That's the irony.
The more who enter the ranks of the richer (draw your line) the more dissatisfaction
occurs. The children of the Great Depression never felt poor. Everyone was poor.
3. Those who complain about any lack in govt services and who pay little into the system
might be right in their criticisms, but how responsible are they ? This point is
admittedly very weak.
4. Should the top 50 pay 100 percent of all income tax revenue collected ???
And should the bottom 50 pay no income tax ? Does getting them out of the tax system
cause any unforseen problems ??? Such as habituating the population on reporting income ?
Last edited:
The original question was, are Canada's taxes fair?
Are you satisifed with the service you recieve on your health care? Are you satisfied with the country's infrastucture as in roads and highways (granted alot of works are local issues but many are federally funded)? Your childrens' schools? Clean water access to the entire population? The country's defense capabilities (or peacekeeping, whatever you like to call it)?
If overall you are pleased with all this (nothing is perfect), then the answer should be yes.
Are you satisifed with the service you recieve on your health care? Are you satisfied with the country's infrastucture as in roads and highways (granted alot of works are local issues but many are federally funded)? Your childrens' schools? Clean water access to the entire population? The country's defense capabilities (or peacekeeping, whatever you like to call it)?
If overall you are pleased with all this (nothing is perfect), then the answer should be yes.
I take home way, way more living in Florida compared to what I did in Ontario. 10 years ago, I calculated on a C$40,000 salary, the difference in taxes was nearly C$3,000.
Today, I make a comfortable salary, and I calculated my total taxes paid last year - including sales, property, gas, etc. - was less than 25%. Including all compensation, i.e. pensions, healthcare, less than 20%.
My health insurance is paid for.
However, we run a deficit in the US while Canada runs a surplus. Deficits are deferred tax increases.
You live in one of those states without state income tax eh? Tempting to someone like me, but I do love life in California. Nursing in Florida has a bad reputation unfortunately (WAY lower wages and poorer working conditions).
I pay for my own health insurance because I change jobs so often. I only take 3 month contracts at a time.
I pay for my own health insurance because I change jobs so often. I only take 3 month contracts at a time.
That must be why when I used to live in an apartment, I would meet nurses from all around the world all the time. Pretty much an instant green card for them if they came over.
It's pretty popular with Brits, Philippinas and eastern Canadians. I worked with a lot of nurses in Toronto who had done stints there. It solidified my decision to focus on California. It's the only state so far with nurse to patient ratios written into law and the pay rates here are excellent IMO. You can get a greencard from almost any hospital in the US nowadays so there is a lot of choice.
The rich deserve to be taxed more. Simply because they can be, with no ill effect.
If I tell you that your two wage options are 30,000 a year and you'll pay 30% or 60,000 a year and you'll pay 40%, will you ever go "Oh no! I'll be so hard done by with the higher taxes!"
Being wealthy is its own reward, thats why everyone strives to be wealthy.
If we lived in a society where a higher wage meant harder work and a worse life (earning aside) then I could see the fury at making people be taxed more to work harder.
But having been in increasingly higher tax brackets its no real shock to anyone else who has done this, that the more you make the easier your job is and the less you work.
Less work, Higher wages (and more take home even with taxes) for the cost of spreading the money around for social programs (in the broadest sense i mean, Ie, cops and roads).
Seems like a sweet deal to me.
If I tell you that your two wage options are 30,000 a year and you'll pay 30% or 60,000 a year and you'll pay 40%, will you ever go "Oh no! I'll be so hard done by with the higher taxes!"
Being wealthy is its own reward, thats why everyone strives to be wealthy.
If we lived in a society where a higher wage meant harder work and a worse life (earning aside) then I could see the fury at making people be taxed more to work harder.
But having been in increasingly higher tax brackets its no real shock to anyone else who has done this, that the more you make the easier your job is and the less you work.
Less work, Higher wages (and more take home even with taxes) for the cost of spreading the money around for social programs (in the broadest sense i mean, Ie, cops and roads).
Seems like a sweet deal to me.
Well... I'm retired now, after about a 35 year working life, split fairly evenly between public and private sector employment, and I can tell you this with some confidence: all the bad things you've ever heard about the public service are all true, but exactly the same things are true of any private sector bureaucracy. Any time more than three or four people try to work together towards a common goal, there's going to be bureaucratic bull****, because the incidence of fools seems to be about 20%. The only difference between the public and private sectors is that the need to pay attention to the bottom line imposes a different kind of discipline on the private sector, but there's just as much stupidity and bureaucratic nonsense.
Are you getting full value for your tax dollars? Of course not. If everybody in the public service understood and was committed to the services they're supposed to provide, the public service could probably eliminate at least 20% of the jobs it has. Are you getting full value for the price you pay to Microsoft for your software, or to Esso for your gas and oil? Of course not. Same rule applies: 20% of the people those organizations pay aren't really doing anything useful. And what can you do about it? Nothing.
That's actually widely enough known to have a name. It's called the Pareto Rule, after the long-dead Italian economist who first figured it out, or the 80-20 rule. 80% of the work is done by 20% of the people. 80% of the business in any particular field is done by 20% of the companies involved. And so forth.
And of particular interest to me, it means 80% of human sexual activity is had by 20% of humans. I sure hope I'm in that 20%...
Are you getting full value for your tax dollars? Of course not. If everybody in the public service understood and was committed to the services they're supposed to provide, the public service could probably eliminate at least 20% of the jobs it has. Are you getting full value for the price you pay to Microsoft for your software, or to Esso for your gas and oil? Of course not. Same rule applies: 20% of the people those organizations pay aren't really doing anything useful. And what can you do about it? Nothing.
That's actually widely enough known to have a name. It's called the Pareto Rule, after the long-dead Italian economist who first figured it out, or the 80-20 rule. 80% of the work is done by 20% of the people. 80% of the business in any particular field is done by 20% of the companies involved. And so forth.
And of particular interest to me, it means 80% of human sexual activity is had by 20% of humans. I sure hope I'm in that 20%...
Last edited:
To an extent, I would like to agree. They have more than enough to survive and what not (but then again, so do many other less rich folks if they ain't trying to beat the Joneses - though I am sure many would disagree).
But I would disagree with you on there being no ill effects, sadly enough. Wish it weren't so... Remember that when you consider rich folks, you consider rich corporations. And all of these rich people might feel it wise to invest elsewhere and open business elsewhere, rather than lose some money to taxes (this applies especially to corporations, who want to save and externalize costs wherever possible, of course). So maybe it is a good decision to make, but often it is bad.
Absolutely. When I was just a few years younger, it took me quite a while to come to terms with this... Now, I feel so much better.
I am 23, and I am toying with the idea of retiring now. I have worked piddly little jobs since 16 and saved almost every penny I made and invested it right away (thanks to my mom for giving me a home, and her love, during those important years). Now, I'm on my own, I'm still saving, and doing some university. If I want to, even though I am hardly what you would call rich, I could retire right now. Hell, I could afford to keep up with the Joneses to an extent just by working about ten hours a week and living off my interest!
For most people, life in Canada and the US is hardly as bad as it can be made out to seem. Wish more people would come to terms with this fact. It just takes a bit of responsibility. I know that sounds rough, and there really are some genuine cases counter to that (especially with people who are disabled - who especially deserve our help). But hey! I'd have more time to help these people out if I retire. More leisure time, for time for the arts, sciences, volunteer work, et cetera.
Are we overtaxed? I don't know, but I do think that the tax system and the way we spend should be overhauled. I'm tired of my money being pissed away on little pet projects, pissed away for political advantage. Such a huge portion of spending is not directed at long-term priority issues, it is directed at whatever the governing party will win it votes next election.
On top of that, I think we tax the wrong things. We should change the tax system to encourage positive behaviours (like saving, earning) and discouraging negative behaviours (like polluting and creating waste). Interesting article along those lines in the Star today:
On top of that, I think we tax the wrong things. We should change the tax system to encourage positive behaviours (like saving, earning) and discouraging negative behaviours (like polluting and creating waste). Interesting article along those lines in the Star today:
Read the rest here.
Saving, if most people do it is a negative action.
Hoarding is one of those greedy little things people do that harm society, hell cripple society if everyone else did them.
This is why government policies discourage savings, that is the nature of constant inflation and its purpose, to make constantly saving up money less of a no brainer.
Money is literally made to be spent and invested in new things. This doesn't mean you have to buy worthless crap, but you should constantly be buying. Perhaps a new parcel of land and then more things for it to build your dream home with. Doesn't matter.
But hoarding wealth is what kills the economy and makes everyone worse off than if they had just spent every dime they had in the first place.
Hoarding is one of those greedy little things people do that harm society, hell cripple society if everyone else did them.
This is why government policies discourage savings, that is the nature of constant inflation and its purpose, to make constantly saving up money less of a no brainer.
Money is literally made to be spent and invested in new things. This doesn't mean you have to buy worthless crap, but you should constantly be buying. Perhaps a new parcel of land and then more things for it to build your dream home with. Doesn't matter.
But hoarding wealth is what kills the economy and makes everyone worse off than if they had just spent every dime they had in the first place.