U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-11-2012, 07:54 PM
 
584 posts, read 399,133 times
Reputation: 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by poscstudent View Post
Buying less means that people in the service industry suffer to you know? If people are spending less money, due to higher taxes, then there will be less jobs in the service industry. Less expensive houses means property taxes for everyone goes up. Less spending also means the government is collecting fewer dollars in sales taxes.

Are you sure raising taxes on the so called "rich" will actually mean more revenue for the government?

You have no evidence higher taxes mean they spend less. You're just making stuff up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-11-2012, 08:02 PM
 
584 posts, read 399,133 times
Reputation: 300
But the overarching principle should be that the tax burden be the same on each of us. Not percent, not how much we'll spend or save, but the actual burden it imposes on our lives.

A 50, 60, 70, even 80% tax rate on someone making $10 million a year is arguably an equivalent burden to a 25% rate on someone making $40,000. Especially if the two people are trying to live in the GTA.

As Warren Buffett has said many times, he was around during the times of 90% rates and doesn't remember anyone working any less hard. And as Eric Schmidt (Google CEO) said to Matt Lauer, if you raised his tax rate a lot, it would have no impact whatsoever on his life.

No one wants to pay taxes. It's just the rich (and you apologists) who make up a bunch of BS reasons why taxing them more will cause all kinds of problems.

But it's all garbage. They have no evidence to prove their points. They're just selfish and want to keep their money. There's nothing more to it than that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2012, 08:20 PM
 
234 posts, read 215,789 times
Reputation: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by qwerbilzak View Post
You have no evidence higher taxes mean they spend less. You're just making stuff up.
Where are they getting the money if the government has it. If you have less disposable income you're not going to spend as much, unless you're racking up debt on credit cards.

If you started paying $5000 more in taxes this year would you be spending the same as you did last year if your salary didn't increase?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2012, 08:22 PM
 
234 posts, read 215,789 times
Reputation: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by qwerbilzak View Post
But the overarching principle should be that the tax burden be the same on each of us. Not percent, not how much we'll spend or save, but the actual burden it imposes on our lives.

A 50, 60, 70, even 80% tax rate on someone making $10 million a year is arguably an equivalent burden to a 25% rate on someone making $40,000. Especially if the two people are trying to live in the GTA.

As Warren Buffett has said many times, he was around during the times of 90% rates and doesn't remember anyone working any less hard. And as Eric Schmidt (Google CEO) said to Matt Lauer, if you raised his tax rate a lot, it would have no impact whatsoever on his life.

No one wants to pay taxes. It's just the rich (and you apologists) who make up a bunch of BS reasons why taxing them more will cause all kinds of problems.

But it's all garbage. They have no evidence to prove their points. They're just selfish and want to keep their money. There's nothing more to it than that.
You're speaking about multibillionaires. I believe the Broadbent institute classified the "rich" as people making over $100,000 a year.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2012, 08:26 PM
 
584 posts, read 399,133 times
Reputation: 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by poscstudent View Post
You're speaking about multibillionaires. I believe the Broadbent institute classified the "rich" as people making over $100,000 a year.
I have no idea who the Broadbent Institute is, but not very many people would consider $100k "rich" in the GTA. Not by a very long shot.

And one doesn't need to be anywhere near a multibillionaire to have a million income or more per year.

More importantly, "rich" is a meaningless word. Anyone in Canada - ANYone - is rich to someone in Somalia.

The appropriate way to tax is equal burden: rich, poor, middle income, multibillionaire, whomever.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2012, 08:31 PM
 
584 posts, read 399,133 times
Reputation: 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by poscstudent View Post
Where are they getting the money if the government has it. If you have less disposable income you're not going to spend as much, unless you're racking up debt on credit cards.

If you started paying $5000 more in taxes this year would you be spending the same as you did last year if your salary didn't increase?
Take the same thousand dollars. Dozens have studies have shown that that thousand dollars is MUCH more likely to be spent in the hands of poor person than a rich person. So your argument is exactly backwards.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2012, 08:54 PM
 
234 posts, read 215,789 times
Reputation: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by qwerbilzak View Post
I have no idea who the Broadbent Institute is, but not very many people would consider $100k "rich" in the GTA. Not by a very long shot.

And one doesn't need to be anywhere near a multibillionaire to have a million income or more per year.

More importantly, "rich" is a meaningless word. Anyone in Canada - ANYone - is rich to someone in Somalia.

The appropriate way to tax is equal burden: rich, poor, middle income, multibillionaire, whomever.
The Broadbent Institute is the think tank that commissioned the poll this thread refers too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2012, 08:57 PM
 
584 posts, read 399,133 times
Reputation: 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by poscstudent View Post
The Broadbent Institute is the think tank that commissioned the poll this thread refers too.
Cool, thanks. I'll check it out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2012, 11:16 PM
 
218 posts, read 190,263 times
Reputation: 304
It is true that the rich CAN create jobs by spending money.
The thing is, it doesn't mean they DO.
If you make $1 million a year and spend $500,000 on your small business, then you should pay taxes only on the remaining $500,000.

But what if you're spending $500,000 on Ferraris, yachts, or private jets? Wouldn't it be better to give some of that money to struggling families? Or help make higher education more affordable? That would help create a happier, more educated population, with a higher average standard of living and therefore lower crime rate. People get less materialistic, and care more about having good health and be middle class rather being ultra-rich.



Of course, some will argue that the government can't be trusted not to waste the money. But that simply means that there has to be a bigger push toward a more efficient government. Political parties either think that the government is perfect and should keep growing, or that the government is fundamentally inefficient and should be scaled down as much as possible.

It's not all that hard to figure out.

A big, efficient, transparent government is better than a small government. And it's not impossible to achieve, as Scandinavian countries have proven.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2012, 11:22 PM
 
Location: Canada
2,891 posts, read 2,322,701 times
Reputation: 4767
Quote:
Originally Posted by poscstudent View Post
Where are they getting the money if the government has it. If you have less disposable income you're not going to spend as much, unless you're racking up debt on credit cards.

If you started paying $5000 more in taxes this year would you be spending the same as you did last year if your salary didn't increase?
The rich people I know, from the very wealthy with private planes and multiple houses to the merely well-off would not worry about 5K in taxes or spend one cent less on their houses, entertainment, or travel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by poscstudent View Post
You're speaking about multibillionaires. I believe the Broadbent institute classified the "rich" as people making over $100,000 a year.
Indeed, $100,000 is not what would normally be classified as rich in N. America. The article cited stated $250,000, not $100,000 and referenced a proposal in Ontario to increase the provincial tax rate for those earning over $500,000 in Ontario by 2 percent. I know of no person earning $500,000 a year who would flinch at that.

I think the word 'rich' is misleading. But it's reassuring, if the article is correct, in stating that 83% of Canadians, including wealthy and conservatives ones, would support that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $79,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top