And a lot of later editing of your own posts.....I will have to start making screen captures
Edit: but you're not worth the trouble.....everyone knows your M.O.
Edit: but you're not worth the trouble.....everyone knows your M.O.
As far as corporate bailouts are concerned, the answer is yes... Which takes us back to green tech; It has not been able to compete in any fashion anywhere on the globe without gvt subsidies, so the public just keeps on pouring cash down these losers for decades to come.
Spare me with the 'relatively small' comment. The billions poured-in in addition to the tax bennies they will get for years (along with the predictable bailouts) will cost a huge amount.
That money could have been directly applied to those that were affected by the housing crisis a few years back.
The difference?... The private sector took it on the chin while they ironed-out the bugs, not gvt.
You've spent far too much time in one of our cherished entitlement unions, haven't you?
There isn't going to be green energy developed in America on any significant scale because it has become politicized. Not going to happen...not now...not ever.
I would only support a flat tax after everyone's basic needs were met. ( food, clothing, shelter, education ). I'd also support getting rid of minimum wage too.
While a flat tax sounds fair it isn't. A flat tax would take money away from the poor who already have enough trouble financing their basic needs. Taxing the poor at the same rate as the wealthy means the poor would have to give up food, clothing, shelter, education, while increased taxes on the wealthy does not affect their ability to meet their basic needs. It curbs the amount they spend on luxuries.
Taxing the poor at the same rate as the wealthy would be cruel and heartless.
The poor spend more of their money on basic needs so they should pay less taxes, no taxes or if poor enough receive social assistance. The wealthy have more disposable income to spend on luxuries, so they should have to pay more.
I believe that most people would do the same. If you wouldn't give the money back to the cashier, return a purse or compensate a client who paid you twice for the same service, then I suspect you are in the minority. I also feel sorry for you, as you don't know the satisfaction that comes with knowing you did the right thing. You should try it sometime.
The growing "me first and screw everyone else" attitude is a recent change. Its the reason why people have to lock their homes and cars. The further back you go, the more honest and trustworthy people were. Sure theft and other criminal activities existed, but they were far less common in the past, than they are now.
The problem isn't modern civilization and technology. When I was in Tokyo a few years ago, I saw thousands of bicycles and almost none had a lock. In Japanese culture the needs of society are more important than the needs of the individual. Stealing is extremely rare. On the way out of an office, you can take an umbrella on the honor system. I'm not saying Japan is a perfect society, but I will say that I have observed that in general the Japanese are more honest and trustworthy than most Canadians and they are a modern society.
The root cause of theft here in Canada is our culture and attitude regarding the welfare of others. Far too people are selfish and wouldn't feel guilty taking something that belonged to others.
I would only support a flat tax after everyone's basic needs were met. ( food, clothing, shelter, education ). I'd also support getting rid of minimum wage too.
While a flat tax sounds fair it isn't. A flat tax would take money away from the poor who already have enough trouble financing their basic needs. Taxing the poor at the same rate as the wealthy means the poor would have to give up food, clothing, shelter, education, while increased taxes on the wealthy does not affect their ability to meet their basic needs. It curbs the amount they spend on luxuries.
Taxing the poor at the same rate as the wealthy would be cruel and heartless.
The poor spend more of their money on basic needs so they should pay less taxes, no taxes or if poor enough receive social assistance. The wealthy have more disposable income to spend on luxuries, so they should have to pay more.
First thing to remember is these rates are applied to 'taxable income' not gross earnings. This is where the big disparity occurs. If I make $250k but invest $100k into a business under venture capital my taxable income drops dramatically. I could also use the forward averaging tax credit program to spread investment losses over a period of years further reducing taxable income and, as you mentioned, capital losses can cause a major reduction in taxable income.Got some input on this:
Employing an avg rate of 26% is misleading at either end of the spectrum. The lower earning demographic (ie < $42K) pays a fed rate of 15% and the upper earners (ie > $130K) pay 29%. The difference on the high earners is small (3%), but the lowest income pays 15% which is significantly different from 26%. Add to this that the provincial component on income ranges from 7.7% on the first $32K (Nfld) and a high of 21% on income over $150K (PEI)... Note: Manitoba has a 17.4% prov tax on all income over $67K.
Using only the rate of taxation the system would seem progressive but my study looked at the tax rates as % of total income. This is where the system becomes regressive.Do the math and the system is highly progressive.
This is one of the biggest problems. Allowing people to pay all their living expenses through their business means they have no taxable income personally and then take advantage of the myriad of corporate loopholes to significantly reduce the tax payable by the business. They in fact use the payments on mortgages and cars and utilities for personal use to reduce the taxable amount of the business.In terms of deductions, there is a finite amount of personal deductions that can be applied against your personal income. An individual (self employed for example) can defer business expenses against the income that can be significant, however, that would occur under the corporate entity at which point the income is taxed (after deductions) and if the individual 'pays themself', that money is taxed again on a personal income level... The underlying point being that 'sheltering' via a corporate entity results in having the money taxed twice (assuming they take a salary).
I am of the opinion that if we are going to tax retirement savings when redeemed they should be taxed at a much lower rate. As it stands, like you point out, There is only very short term benefits in these programs that are recouped by govt later anyway and sometimes at a much higher rate than if taxed initially. What I found was a culture among the very wealthy of knowingly investing in companies that are failing or losing money to advantage themselves of the capital loss/forward averaging credit programs.Lastly, the only real personal investment deduction comes in the form of RESPs, RRSPs and RIFs. These are effective in the short/medium term (AND have max limits that don't come close to the high income bracket); however, the system is set up such that at the time of retirement (as is commonly the case), the monies must be withdrawn in a (relatively) short time at which point the retiree pays the full tax load... The message here is that the personal deductions are not very deep.
The whole system is complex...far too complex. The flat tax and removal of deductions from gross earnings simplifies everything. I would also mention closing most of the ludicrous deductions from the corporate tax system should also be a part of revamping the tax structure.We can talk about capital gains/losses as well, but it gets more complex
First thing to remember is these rates are applied to 'taxable income' not gross earnings. This is where the big disparity occurs. If I make $250k but invest $100k into a business under venture capital my taxable income drops dramatically. I could also use the forward averaging tax credit program to spread investment losses over a period of years further reducing taxable income and, as you mentioned, capital losses can cause a major reduction in taxable income.
Using only the rate of taxation the system would seem progressive but my study looked at the tax rates as % of total income. This is where the system becomes regressive.
This is one of the biggest problems. Allowing people to pay all their living expenses through their business means they have no taxable income personally and then take advantage of the myriad of corporate loopholes to significantly reduce the tax payable by the business. They in fact use the payments on mortgages and cars and utilities for personal use to reduce the taxable amount of the business.
I am of the opinion that if we are going to tax retirement savings when redeemed they should be taxed at a much lower rate. As it stands, like you point out, There is only very short term benefits in these programs that are recouped by govt later anyway and sometimes at a much higher rate than if taxed initially. What I found was a culture among the very wealthy of knowingly investing in companies that are failing or losing money to advantage themselves of the capital loss/forward averaging credit programs.
The whole system is complex...far too complex. The flat tax and removal of deductions from gross earnings simplifies everything. I would also mention closing most of the ludicrous deductions from the corporate tax system should also be a part of revamping the tax structure.
It is not deductible directly but the tax liability can be deferred over a period of years and offset completely through various other means over that time. It can be a direct deduction if a self-employed has incorporated themselves.I am not a tax expert in any way, but I can speak on this based on my dealings and experience with accounting/tax professionals and my experience.
Regarding the $100K investment (ven cap); and to the best of my knowledge, you are not able to deduct that capital investment from your current personal tax bill. My understanding is that any investment of that nature (ie outside of RRSP, RESP, etc) are paid-for entirely with after-tax dollars. An individual can flow after tax dollars into a corp and the corporation can allocate monies (on a deductible basis), but the seed capital is not deductible on my personal taxes.
I can agree with this. Depending upon ones financial management and use of tax codes it can result in a wide variety of outcomes.Fair enough, but lets recognize that there is a relative nature to this. 2 separate people that make the same income and have the same costs could expend those monies very differently leading to 2 very different situations 5 years down the road.... Depending on the situation that is an*lysed (above reference), teh system can be regressive for one and progressive for the other.
You would be surprised. The biggest culprits are those who incorporate themselves (consultants, accountants etc.) but work from home. By maintaining assets under the corporate entity they avail themselves of most living expenses.That is highly unlikely. I'm sure that many people try, but one CRA audit will kibosh that in short order.
This is something that is not that common but does still occur. Some would rather incur a loss of $300,000 than pay the govt $150,000 but there are few that can afford it. We are talking about the top 0.01% and they have many other ways to avoid taxation. Operating out of a haven like Barbados seems to be the current rage.I agree for the most part, but will contest the idea of investing in losers for the tax bennies that may be associated... That is extremely tough to do on a personal basis. Income Trusts were the last one to be omitted by the Feds. One can do it through REITS, but the sector has been under-performing as of late. That said, it puts the individual into a loss position and although you can claim a capital loss on the investment, it still doesn't change the fact that you lost money
So true!Agreed... Simplifying the system would be of overall benefit (except to the tax accountants)
Too funny... You've been burned on each ill informed comment you've made. The only option you have left, as we've seen, is to continue to move the target in the hopes that you get something right.
I especially like to comment about the only thing required for renewables is 'a method of storing the wind and solar energy'... To be honest, you're way ahead of yourself. First, the tech has to be competitive such that the public buys in, second, transporting it over any reasonable distance is a major hurdle and lastly comes the storage issue... The solutions do exist, although sadly, only on sci-fi programs and movies.
In the meantime, I'll dig around for a consolation prize for ya as thanks for playing the game.
I would also support corporation not being allowed to make a profit. Any money left after expenses deduct from revenue, should either be re-invested in the corporation (growth, buy back shares, acquisition...) or paid out as dividends to share holders. As soon as a person gets money by any means, it should be taxed as income.
Sorry to disappoint you,
but with proper storage, wind and solar will not only be competive, but will be cheaper than oil and coal without the deleterious environmental effects.
Transportation of power is a snap. The electrical grid already exists. It's those large toweres carrying wires in case you missed it.
I would welcome an intelligent reply from you that actually contains proof.
I made a reference to liguid metal batteries in my original post. Did you even check to see what they are?
Giant liquid metal batteries could make renewable energy sources more viable | The Verge
TR10: Liquid Battery - MIT Technology Review
It is not deductible directly but the tax liability can be deferred over a period of years and offset completely through various other means over that time. It can be a direct deduction if a self-employed has incorporated themselves.
I can agree with this. Depending upon ones financial management and use of tax codes it can result in a wide variety of outcomes.
You would be surprised. The biggest culprits are those who incorporate themselves (consultants, accountants etc.) but work from home. By maintaining assets under the corporate entity they avail themselves of most living expenses.
Not true if they are being honest with their taxes. NO doubt some are taking chances with what they are reporting but most things supplied by company is a taxable benefit. That would include housing unless you maintain a principle residence elsewhere. Also if the house is owned by the corporation it is not eligible for homeowners grant.
Not true if they are being honest with their taxes. NO doubt some are taking chances with what they are reporting but most things supplied by company is a taxable benefit. That would include housing unless you maintain a principle residence elsewhere. Also if the house is owned by the corporation it is not eligible for homeowners grant.
I would only support a flat tax after everyone's basic needs were met. ( food, clothing, shelter, education ). I'd also support getting rid of minimum wage too.
While a flat tax sounds fair it isn't. A flat tax would take money away from the poor who already have enough trouble financing their basic needs. Taxing the poor at the same rate as the wealthy means the poor would have to give up food, clothing, shelter, education, while increased taxes on the wealthy does not affect their ability to meet their basic needs. It curbs the amount they spend on luxuries.
Taxing the poor at the same rate as the wealthy would be cruel and heartless.
The poor spend more of their money on basic needs so they should pay less taxes, no taxes or if poor enough receive social assistance. The wealthy have more disposable income to spend on luxuries, so they should have to pay more.
I believe that most people would do the same. If you wouldn't give the money back to the cashier, return a purse or compensate a client who paid you twice for the same service, then I suspect you are in the minority. I also feel sorry for you, as you don't know the satisfaction that comes with knowing you did the right thing. You should try it sometime.
The growing "me first and screw everyone else" attitude is a recent change. Its the reason why people have to lock their homes and cars. The further back you go, the more honest and trustworthy people were. Sure theft and other criminal activities existed, but they were far less common in the past, than they are now.
The problem isn't modern civilization and technology. When I was in Tokyo a few years ago, I saw thousands of bicycles and almost none had a lock. In Japanese culture the needs of society are more important than the needs of the individual. Stealing is extremely rare. On the way out of an office, you can take an umbrella on the honor system. I'm not saying Japan is a perfect society, but I will say that I have observed that in general the Japanese are more honest and trustworthy than most Canadians and they are a modern society.
The root cause of theft here in Canada is our culture and attitude regarding the welfare of others. Far too people are selfish and wouldn't feel guilty taking something that belonged to others.
One audit will reverse that and then some.
I know lots of consultants and without exception; not one goes overboard in deducting their personal expenses... The cost of getting caught far outweighs the risks that are assumed
Generally when we talk about a flat tax we are inferring that there is a minimum income below which there is no tax. Basically the poor pay no taxes now because of all the credits they get. Just that there are a lot of parasites administering the system we now have that don't want it to change.
The few that try it usually get caught soon. Ever notice how many accountants get nailed with fraud?
I can hear the rushing sound right now... The sound of capital fleeing the country, closely followed by the companies that would have otherwise operated here
You never fail to disappoint
I found the solution for you... Unfortunately, you'll have to wait until 2369
Little known fact: when Scotty retired in 2369, he went into business supplying quality Starship-ready Dilithium Crystals.
... And how effective it is... School yourself on the tangible losses that occur over distances, you'll be singing a different tune.
They are always wasted on you. BTW - pointing out the obvious and already accepted standards doesn't require any digging
I can hardly wait to have a giant liquid battery filled with toxic components AND molten salt in my neighbourhood... It even sounds eco-friendly and extra safe
Pardon the NIMBY-ism, but the tar sands isn't situated at the end of my street.BTW I really have to laugh at your liquid battery comment given the toxic entities you champion. I doubt very much that several thousand liquid batteries would produce anything equal to what the Alberta tar sands produces in a day.
As usual your reply contains little more than innuendo and supposed witticisms along with your usual dodge of the issues.
Once again I note you have failed to answer a single one of my arguments with any evidence, either because you were too lazy to look for it, or more likely because you couldn't find any. But I didn't really think you would, so no disappointment there. Given your usual complete lack of substance in this debate i won't waste any more time on it.
BTW I really have to laugh at your liquid battery comment given the toxic entities you champion. I doubt very much that several thousand liquid batteries would produce anything equal to what the Alberta tar sands produces in a day.