Toronto Escorts

Fraser Institute Misleading Canadians on Taxing The Rich

Charlemagne

Well-known member
Jul 19, 2017
15,451
2,483
113
Fraser Institute Misleading Canadians on Taxing The Rich

The Fraser Institute claims that tax increases on the richest 1% cost the government revenue. They are wrong.

September 24, 2018

The Fraser Institute published an opinion piece on their blog, and in Sun Media newspapers, claiming that an increase in the tax rate on the richest 1% caused revenues to actually fall in 2016.

They reach this conclusion by comparing the tax collected from people with incomes above $250,000 in 2016 with the tax collected from this group in 2015, showing a drop in tax revenue of $4.8 billion in 2016. The Fraser Institute suggests that the cause of this drop is the tax increase on the richest 1%.

But this is a superficial and misleading analysis. A deeper look at historical tax data shows what really happened: rich Canadians shifted their reported income into the 2015 tax year to avoid paying the higher tax rate in 2016. As should be obvious, however, this shift can only be done once — those in the top income bracket will not be able to avoid the higher tax rate in future years.

We can see this by looking at tax data from years prior to 2015. Between 2011 and 2014, tax revenue from the $250,000+ income bracket averaged $24.4 billion. The amount of tax collected from this group grew by an average 5.5% each year during this period.

However, in 2015 we see a sharp spike in tax revenue collected from the top income bracket, growing by 19.18% to nearly $32 billion. This happened because the amount of reported income increased to $161 billion in 2015 from $134 billion in 2014.

This large increase was driven by people shifting their income into the 2015 tax year to avoid the tax increase on the rich which impacted income reported in 2016.

As you would expect, with the rich shifting their reported income into the 2015 tax year, the amount of taxable income in 2016 fell to $126 billion, causing total tax payable to fall to $27.1 billion.

It’s important to note that this means tax revenue did not actually fall — it was merely shifted into a different tax year.

Beyond this, the Fraser Institute is wrong to claim that this shift represents a permanent effect of the tax increase on the 1%. In fact, the data shows that this is not the case. Instead, the tax increase caused a one-off shift of reported income to 2015 which cannot be repeated in future years.

Instead of measuring a real change in tax income over the long-term, the Fraser Institute cherry-picked two years in which the gap between tax revenue would be unusually large. They then used this misleading data to provide a sheen of legitimacy to what is really a well-tread ideological opposition to taxes in general.

The reality, backed by Canada Revenue Agency historical data, is that tax collected from the richest 1% was higher than normal in 2015 and lower than normal in 2016. When the data becomes available, we will likely find that 2017 data shows a reversion to the average in terms of income reported by Canada’s 1%, with a slight increase in tax revenue thanks to the increase in the tax rate on this group.

We look forward to the Fraser Institute correcting their error at that time.

All data from Statistics Canada T1 Tax Data
https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/programs/about-canada-revenue-agency-cra/income-statistics-gst-hst-statistics/preliminary-statistics.html

https://north99.org/2018/09/24/fraser-institute-misleading-canadians-on-taxing-the-rich/
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
What’s sad is that all it takes to be in the 1% is 250k Canadian.....

The assumption is moving income into another year is the only options those people have, I think that’s a bad assumption.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,741
17,569
113
What’s sad is that all it takes to be in the 1% is 250k Canadian.....

The assumption is moving income into another year is the only options those people have, I think that’s a bad assumption.
Panama Papers, yes.
Still, there will be people like larue who would still quote this study.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,157
2,149
113
Panama Papers, yes.
Still, there will be people like larue who would still quote this study.
Still there will lots of ignorant people like Frankfooter who do not have a clue and will ignore the study because it is convenient for them to do so.

Some will choose to make less income, ie stop making investments in their business
Some will choose to make less income by taking less money out of their business
Some will choose to put their money to sleep until a more responsible govt is voted in
Some will move their business
Some will sell their business
Most will employ tax experts to legally avoid paying more taxes

the assumption that moving income into another year is the only options these people have is flawed
It is not nearly as flawed as the assumption that rich do not pay their fair share. The top 20% pay 56% of taxes in this country. Way more than their fair share
Nor is it as flawed as the assumption that taking more than half of a successful persons income via taxation is a good idea. that will kill incentive to take risks & grow our economy.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,741
17,569
113
Still there will lots of ignorant people like Frankfooter who do not have a clue and will ignore the study because it is convenient for them to do so.

Some will choose to make less income, ie stop making investments in their business
Some will choose to make less income by taking less money out of their business
Some will choose to put their money to sleep until a more responsible govt is voted in
Some will move their business
Some will sell their business
Most will employ tax experts to legally avoid paying more taxes

the assumption that moving income into another year is the only options these people have is flawed
It is not nearly as flawed as the assumption that rich do not pay their fair share. The top 20% pay 56% of taxes in this country. Way more than their fair share
Nor is it as flawed as the assumption that taking more than half of a successful persons income via taxation is a good idea. that will kill incentive to take risks & grow our economy.
Wow, that was fast.
Thanks for confirming that even though the numbers are fudged in their study, you still back it.
Just as said!
Gotta love it when you confirm my claims so quickly.
Thanks.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,157
2,149
113
Wow, that was fast.
Thanks for confirming that even though the numbers are fudged in their study, you still back it.
Just as said!
Gotta love it when you confirm my claims so quickly.
Thanks.
The numbers are not fudged
Do you ever get anything right?????
North 99 offered an alternative conclusion of the same numbers, however they based their conclusion upon a flawed assumption

Your claims?
Stop it! you are making me laugh
You are too bloody stupid to do anything more than copy & paste someones else's work while adding a misleading / wrong statement
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,741
17,569
113
The numbers are not fudged
Do you ever get anything right?????
North 99 offered an alternative conclusion of the same numbers, however they based their conclusion upon a flawed assumption

Your claims?
Stop it! you are making me laugh
You are too bloody stupid to do anything more than copy & paste someones else's work while adding a misleading / wrong statement
Read the OP again.
Fraser used cherry picking, by picking a year with a tax change, to make a false claim.
You really are easy to fool, aren't you?
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
Still there will lots of ignorant people like Frankfooter who do not have a clue and will ignore the study because it is convenient for them to do so.

Some will choose to make less income, ie stop making investments in their business
Some will choose to make less income by taking less money out of their business
Some will choose to put their money to sleep until a more responsible govt is voted in
Some will move their business
Some will sell their business
Most will employ tax experts to legally avoid paying more taxes

the assumption that moving income into another year is the only options these people have is flawed
It is not nearly as flawed as the assumption that rich do not pay their fair share. The top 20% pay 56% of taxes in this country. Way more than their fair share
Nor is it as flawed as the assumption that taking more than half of a successful persons income via taxation is a good idea. that will kill incentive to take risks & grow our economy.
How disappointing you don't seem to think any of the rich would just pay their new taxes as they paid the old ones. What a sad statement that makes about them and about your advocacy.

Your later points might be worth discussing, but you owe us more than terse little clichés. A definition of that big little word 'fair' for instance. If the top 20% made 80% of income earned in the land, I'd say paying only 56% of taxes was better than fair. Similarly assuming as you did, that risk-taking is profitable and a good idea isn't anything I've heard any wise person say.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
How disappointing you don't seem to think any of the rich would just pay their new taxes as they paid the old ones. What a sad statement that makes about them and about your advocacy.

Your later points might be worth discussing, but you owe us more than terse little clichés. A definition of that big little word 'fair' for instance. If the top 20% made 80% of income earned in the land, I'd say paying only 56% of taxes was better than fair. Similarly assuming as you did, that risk-taking is profitable and a good idea isn't anything I've heard any wise person say.
Every wealthy liberal I know works extraordinary hard to reduce their tax burden. They don’t see any hypocrisy in it.
 

nottyboi

Well-known member
May 14, 2008
22,447
1,325
113
What’s sad is that all it takes to be in the 1% is 250k Canadian.....

The assumption is moving income into another year is the only options those people have, I think that’s a bad assumption.
That is a pretty sad stat I agree. In the US its 465K, Canada is MUCH less wealthy then the USA. What Canada really needs to do is put inheritence taxes on the super rich and lower the tax burden on the living. Encourage the accumulation of wealth to help people get to their first 1M in net worth faster and with lower taxes. Lower captial gains rates for investing in Canadian corporations...this is a FUCKING NO BRAINER GEEZ!!!
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
That is a pretty sad stat I agree. In the US its 465K, Canada is MUCH less wealthy then the USA. What Canada really needs to do is put inheritence taxes on the super rich and lower the tax burden on the living. Encourage the accumulation of wealth to help people get to their first 1M in net worth faster and with lower taxes. Lower captial gains rates for investing in Canadian corporations...this is a FUCKING NO BRAINER GEEZ!!!
I don’t think an inheritance tax will have much impact but supporting small business is the key. Or you can go the danmand route and build a welfare state.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,157
2,149
113
Read the OP again.
Fraser used cherry picking, by picking a year with a tax change, to make a false claim.
You really are easy to fool, aren't you?
Give me a break
picking a year with a tax change is cherry picking?
So what year would you have picked to determine the impact of the tax change? 2002?

we know you're a moron, however please do not feel compelled to prove it on a daily basis

at some point in your life you might wake up to the FACT that taxation is not a bottomless pit
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,157
2,149
113
That is a pretty sad stat I agree. In the US its 465K, Canada is MUCH less wealthy then the USA. What Canada really needs to do is put inheritence taxes on the super rich and lower the tax burden on the living. Encourage the accumulation of wealth to help people get to their first 1M in net worth faster and with lower taxes. Lower captial gains rates for investing in Canadian corporations...this is a FUCKING NO BRAINER GEEZ!!!
Nope

sorry the top 20% of income earners pay 56% of the tax in this country, They pay more than their fair share
The problem with socialist is eventually they run out of other peoples money

If you want lower taxes the spendin has to be controlled better
Given our aging demographics & rising health care costs that will be challenging, however lots of waste in govt
 

Charlemagne

Well-known member
Jul 19, 2017
15,451
2,483
113
Nope

sorry the top 20% of income earners pay 56% of the tax in this country, They pay more than their fair share
The problem with socialist is eventually they run out of other peoples money

If you want lower taxes the spendin has to be controlled better
Given our aging demographics & rising health care costs that will be challenging, however lots of waste in govt
Do your numbers include all the deductions that they are eligible for and take full advantage of?

Not to mention all the "externalities" which corporations cause that every day common man has to pay for, some things taxpayers pay for some of it comes out of your own pocket.
 

nottyboi

Well-known member
May 14, 2008
22,447
1,325
113
I don’t think an inheritance tax will have much impact but supporting small business is the key. Or you can go the danmand route and build a welfare state.
Small business already has highly favorable tax rates. The govt cracked down on employees masqurading as small business and income sprinkling but the small business tax rate is very, very good.
 

nottyboi

Well-known member
May 14, 2008
22,447
1,325
113
Nope

sorry the top 20% of income earners pay 56% of the tax in this country, They pay more than their fair share
The problem with socialist is eventually they run out of other peoples money

If you want lower taxes the spendin has to be controlled better
Given our aging demographics & rising health care costs that will be challenging, however lots of waste in govt
Why should the top 20% not pay 56%? I am in the top 1% and I don't see why I should not pay more then some poor fucker that is making min wage. We pay based on the benefit we derive from this society. Healthcare costs are a HUGE problem. We really need to delink our healthcare system and eduction of care givers from the US, and radically transform it away from a doctor led model. Its too expensive.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Small business already has highly favorable tax rates. The govt cracked down on employees masqurading as small business and income sprinkling but the small business tax rate is very, very good.
And regulations and a start up culture?
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts