Do not misrepresent me !!!Or the type of government Larue favours, which gives more tax breaks to the rich. Take Trump (please), his new tax break for the middle class stands to save him $23 million and his swamp gang $3.5 billion, but unfortunately it will most likely raise taxes on the middle class. Bring on the dollar stores!
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...nual-23-million-tax-cut-under-plan-study-says
Of course he did:Selfie did not go looking for feed back,... Hair Doo simply fucked up,... and now he's trying to fix it.
Do you ever take your own advice?Do not misrepresent me !!!
I favour more tax breaks for all Canadians.
Canadians are taxed way too much
As for you....
You seem to think you can make a claim on other peoples income and their assets to re-distribute.
Sorry they tried this almost a hundred years ago in Russia and several generations paid a massive price to determine the Marxist experiment was a very bad idea
Yeah sure, its usually sound wisdomDo you ever take your own advice?
Then please stop misrepresenting my claims.Yeah sure, its usually sound wisdom
Yep,... you are correct.
Broaden your perspective JohnLarue; you sound like the CFIB. There's more than one angle to every issue. Even as a small business owner myself, I recognize that.Loopholes ?
You mean like the tax planning tools to ensure it is not more expensive to pass the family farm onto a farmers children as opposed to selling it to someone else?
You mean the tax planning tools that enable growing businesses be able to obtain capital from parents or other family members ?
You mean loopholes that will enable doctors to prosper and remain to practise in small towns in Canada? We are going to need every last doctor due to an aging population.
Tax targeting doctors may prove to be a nightmare down the road
That was the feedback and thus the adjustment. To me its quite balanced. Income sprinkling, huge amounts of passive income do not serve the underlying policy of giving small business a favorable tax rate.Yep,... you are correct.
I guess I was basing my assumption on the fact that so many small business owners went public to show their condemnation.
That was the feedback and thus the adjustment. To me its quite balanced. Income sprinkling, huge amounts of passive income do not serve the underlying policy of giving small business a favorable tax rate.
But you see the way the small business tax works, is the 220K is taxed at 9%. It only becomes income if it is taken out of the business as income. Some can also be taken out as a tax free dividend (I think 30-35K) when you allow income sprinkling a business owner can give each family member an income even of they are not involved with the business and do not get any money. Also, businesses were keeping money in the business and passive income was being taxed at 9%. The money is either supposed to be reinvested in the business or taken out. So to me this is good policy. Now they can earn up to 50K a year passive income and the rate goes from 12.5 down to 9. Also income sprinkling (which IMHO is fraud) has stricter criteria and some professions are not eligible in certain circumstances.But one has to understand why small business owners would make any effort to try and keep a reasonable amount of income they put their lives, and own capital into.
The Governments own example of a small business owner making $220,000 per year,... would lose $79,000 of what he/she erned to taxes.
That to me,... is counter productive.
when you target other peoples assets and income it most certainly isThen please stop misrepresenting my claims.
Changing taxation based on income and taxing the rich a bit more is not a return to the 'Marxist experiment'.
Take your own advice, please.
If it was the right thing to do they would have announce the tax break and changing the tax planning tools both in JulyBroaden your perspective JohnLarue; you sound like the CFIB. There's more than one angle to every issue. Even as a small business owner myself, I recognize that.
Even if the October announcement was a knee-jerk reaction to the outcry, which I agree is likely, it's still the right thing to do: both closing the loopholes and providing the tax break. Of course there's going to be outcry about the loopholes closing. The special interest groups who lobbied for them are pissed! Doesn't mean it's wrong to close them.
attacks on Framers and doctors will hurt us allDoesn't mean it's wrong to close them
I posted the governments example,...of a small business,...But you see the way the small business tax works, is the 220K is taxed at 9%. It only becomes income if it is taken out of the business as income. Some can also be taken out as a tax free dividend (I think 30-35K) when you allow income sprinkling a business owner can give each family member an income even of they are not involved with the business and do not get any money. Also, businesses were keeping money in the business and passive income was being taxed at 9%. The money is either supposed to be reinvested in the business or taken out. So to me this is good policy. Now they can earn up to 50K a year passive income and the rate goes from 12.5 down to 9. Also income sprinkling (which IMHO is fraud) has stricter criteria and some professions are not eligible in certain circumstances.
You are the one that thinks this was about assets, not me.when you target other peoples assets and income it most certainly is
Wealth re-distribution without regard for the consequences is your objective, just like in Russia 1920s
think about what you are demanding please, then give your head a shake
You were the one who thought it would be a good idea to tax the holders of governments bonds - Those are assetsYou are the one that thinks this was about assets, not me.
Wealth re-distribution without regard for the consequences is your objective, just like in Russia 1920s.And we are talking about 1970-1990 or so Canadian tax policy, not your misrepresentedclaims about Russia.
No, I questioned you about a quote from you that sounded like you were worried about taxing assets. It came up because of your poor use of the language.You were the one who thought it would be a good idea to tax the holders of governments bonds - Those are assets
Are you really comparing the progressive tax rates of the '90's in Canada with Russia in the '20's?[Wealth re-distribution without regard for the consequences is your objective, just like in Russia 1920s.
It is as about as clear as clear can be
I am not sure what you mean, is that before or after the changes? But at 9% a small business owner would only pay those kind of taxes if he took a bunch of money out and paid it to him/herself as income.I posted the governments example,...of a small business,...
"The Governments own example of a small business owner making $220,000 per year,... would lose $79,000 of what he/she erned to taxes".
Are you saying the government is wrong,... ???
Of coarse its going to be taken out as income,... why else would anybody own a business,... to make $50k per year,... ???
No you clearly stated you want to tax government debtNo, I questioned you about a quote from you that sounded like you were worried about taxing assets. It came up because of your poor use of the language.
My language caused you to post that??Frankfooter said:If you are trying to claim that the 1% own the banks where government debt is held, then nothing would be smarter then to tax a bit of that to pay off the debt. That's just stranded money that you and I are paying, while the 1% let it sit and make money off it.
Nope, I have never once mentioned the 1990s, but I am pretty sure they did not tax assets in the 1990s, so its not a valid comparison for youAre you really comparing the progressive tax rates of the '90's in Canada with Russia in the '20's?
I am not misrepresenting youOr are you just misrepresenting me, which you requested me not to do?
Note that this is the start of the quote you used:No you clearly stated you want to tax government debt
NopeNote that this is the start of the quote you used:
If you are trying to claim
This was an answer to your claim, and I wasn't talking about taxing stranded debt, I was talking about taxing the 1% who are in the process of stranding debt before it becomes more stranded debt.
Once again you are misrepresenting me.
You want to tax someone else's asset. Periodnothing would be smarter then to tax a bit of that to pay off the debt. That's just stranded money that you and I are paying, while the 1% let it sit and make money off it.
No amount of back peddling will change these factsThis argument has been about returning progressive tax rates to rates used in Canada in the '80's and '90's, not about taxing assets.
That is what you have repeatedly compared to Russia.
