How Pierre Poilievre is trying to bring complex issue of marginal effective tax rates to the fore

[The_Foxer]

How Pierre Poilievre is trying to bring complex issue of marginal effective tax rates to the forehttps://archive.ph/njcpV
The intricacies of marginal effective tax rates don’t usually – or ever – take centre stage in political campaigns, but Conservative leadership candidate Pierre Poilievre is pushing that concept as part of a pitch for broad tax reform.

And this really is the kind of leadership we need. He's right for the most part, the way things are the more you try to get into the middle class, the harder it is because of tax increases and 'clawbacks'. You might earn more, but your pay is worth less so you really don't notice a big difference in your life.

Trudeau has taxed the middle class nearly out of existance both through direct taxation AND indirect, and the provinces haven't helped as a rule. A person making 75k a year isn't all that much better off than a person making 50. They're a LITTLE better off for sure, but not as much as people think

BTW - the TL/DR is that people experience as much as an 80 percent effective tax rate as they go from lower income to middle income in canada due to both increases in actual tax rates and clawbacks of tax deductions and benefits. And significant tax reform is necessary to make it possible for people to go from lower income to middle class living or people get trapped in lower income situations.

 

[Ron in Regina]

Legally, what is the definition of “Middle Class” in Canada?

I hear lots mentioned about “Middle Class” & I think we still might have a “Minister of Middle Class” in the Trudeau Cabinet…..but what the Hell is “ Middle Class” anyway???

 

[The_Foxer]

Legally, what is the definition of “Middle Class” in Canada?

There is no legal definition. Nor is there a completely accepted un-legal one either. The edges blur. But it's generally been thought of as being around 1/3 below to 200% above the median income.

For canada it would mean somewhere in the neighbourhood of 40 - 200 thousand 'ish. Others define it more along the lines of those who are able to live a comfortable lifestyle and still be able to save some money. The old two cars and a decent home, a family vacation each year and a small amount of savings. Obviously that definition changes for areas as prices may differ.

But it's all pointing at the same thing. Having a few luxuries and not having to struggle paycheque to paycheque.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Legally, what is the definition of “Middle Class” in Canada?

I hear lots mentioned about “Middle Class” & I think we still might have a “Minister of Middle Class” in the Trudeau Cabinet…..but what the Hell is “ Middle Class” anyway???

One would think it was the middle third of the population in household income, right?

Wrong.

It's like "patriotism." It's whatever you can convince the chumps it is.

I've heard in the U.S., about 75% of the people call themselves "middle class."

 

[Ron in Regina]

So basically, if you’re not homeless or you don’t own a yacht….you’re “Middle-Class” it seems, yet mentally I picture Dan & Rosanne Conner types when the term “Middle-Class” is used. No wonder politicians love the term.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

So basically, if you’re not homeless or you don’t own a yacht….you’re “Middle-Class” it seems, yet mentally I picture Dan & Rosanne Conner types when the term “Middle-Class” is used. No wonder politicians love the term.

Oddly, I'd call them lower-class. I recollect when Roseanne was teaching kids to buy the generic cereal and dump it in the name-brand box, or sending the power bill to the phone company and the phone bill to the power company to buy time.

I'd say "middle class" is when you pay the bills without worry, and "upper class" is when you don't know what a "bill" is.

 

[The_Foxer]

I'd say "middle class" is when you pay the bills without worry, and "upper class" is when you don't know what a "bill" is.

Well.. yes and no. I mean, even rich people can create a situation where they don't have enough money for their bills. And using the 'rosanne' example they were tight on cash BUT they did own a house, their vehicles, they were raising three kids and getting by.. they might be considerd "lower middle class" by Canadian standards. Might be different in the states of course seeing as we all apperently get to make up the definition anyway

I think we're all sort of dancing around the same thing - the 'middle class' is where you can live what most would call an 'average' lifestyle where you have a secure home, vehicles and maybe a few toys, can afford a few of the luxuries like eating out or going on vacations, and if you're smart with your money maybe save a few bucks. It'll differ from area to area and country to country, but we all kind of know what it means even if we can't define it precisely. Its the range which bridges the divide between "low income" and "rich" . In Canada we often break it down further to lower middle, middle, and upper middle.

And that's useful because what we're seeing now is an erosion of the number of people who would liklely be considered 'upper middle'. and an increase in the percent that wold be considered more to the lower middle end. In fact around 70 percent of Canadians are changing their buying habits right now, switching to cheaper brands and buying a little less food or substituting items they usually buy for cheaper options.

Whatever the definition, it's pretty clear that the 'middle class' is being eroded and is moving closer to the low income class. Trudeau ran on "improving' the middle class and making it easier for low income people to move into that class and for people to move up within that class, but obviously the opposite is happening.