Canadians Are Not Paying More In Taxes Than ‘The Necessities of Life'

JohnLarue · Aug 19, 2018

Frankfooter said:
Do you honestly believe that they actually pay that much in taxes and don't use any accounting tricks to lessen their payments?

Tell us more in detail how you avoid taxes when earning $120K while raising a family and paying down a mortgage ?
I think you do not have the first clue about tax planning or the limitations of the "Loopholes" you fell are robbing you of your GOD Given right to others wealth through taxation?
Just like I could tell you knew squat about science, I smell more bovine scatollogy from you

Do not forget there are no deductions wrt sales tax, property tax or the multiple revenue tools Granny Wynne has burdened us with
The deductions for Income taxes for most employees are limited to RRSPs (max 18% if you can save that much while also saving for your kids college & paying down the mortage)
If you work off commision or own a business there are more deductions available, but they must be related to cash laid out for business & there is most definitely more risk.

Explain to us why in your twisted opinion taxation has to reduce the reward available for taking a risk & employing others.
More importantly explain to us how tax targeting the rich does not discourage risk taking & business investment so vital to our economy ?

Boober69 · Aug 19, 2018

shack said:
But what percent of the total Canadian income do the top 20% make? I imagine that they make more than 56% of the total income.

Is it some kind of crime for some people to make a lot of money? And why would people who make less think that they are entitled to it?

Boober69 · Aug 19, 2018

bver_hunter said:
Well, simply not true. If you know how to invest in your RRSP, RPP, TFSA, Charitable Donations and take full advantage of them along with child benefits etc, there is no way that you will be paying 50% in taxes.

So someone who makes $120k+ should pay more taxes since they can invest in those tax shelters?

Boober69 · Aug 19, 2018

Frankfooter said:
You should stop doing your own taxes and hire an accountant.
Or fire your present one.

So on one hand you think people who make more should pay more taxes, but on the other hand, they should hire more creative accountants to help them shelter their money so it doesn't get gobbled up in taxes that go to help the low income earners/less fortunate/social programs?
How does that work exactly?
Please enlighten us on your logic & hypocrisy please.

shack · Aug 19, 2018

Boober69 said:
Is it some kind of crime for some people to make a lot of money? And why would people who make less think that they are entitled to it?

Too bad you can't follow the conversation. The discussion is about taxes.

You have permission to ask me a question once you have figured it out. Otherwise you are just a boob.

Frankfooter · Aug 19, 2018

JohnLarue said:
Tell us more in detail how you avoid taxes when earning $120K while raising a family and paying down a mortgage ?
I think you do not have the first clue about tax planning or the limitations of the "Loopholes" you fell are robbing you of your GOD Given right to others wealth through taxation?
Just like I could tell you knew squat about science, I smell more bovine scatollogy from you

Shall we review how ignorant your claims about science are, would you like to read your claims about carbon dating and climate change that show you are the ignorant one here again?

JohnLarue said:
My position has been that It would be the biggest sin mankind ever committed if we cause our own extinction

JohnLarue said:
I have also never said I know more than the scientists
To be fair I have also never said I do not

JohnLarue said:
Look stupid
I most certainly understand science better than some loud mouth, high school drop-out who can not calculate a weighted average
I searched for extrapolation & found only one mention & that did not provide any indication there was not any extrapolation or estimations in any or all of the work
How can one state an ice core sample is 800,000 years old without extrapolation?

JohnLarue said:
Carbon dating is based upon half lives which requires exponential extrapulation
Your studies were using ice cores supposedly 800,000 years old

JohnLarue said:
.
Anything over 5,000 years is pushing it and will introduce experimental errors which grow exponentially the further you push out from 5,000 years

JohnLarue said:
I admit nothing

Your ignorance about science are echoed by your ignorance about taxation, the effect of high gini ratios on society and a functioning economy.

JohnLarue · Aug 19, 2018

Frankfooter said:
Shall we review how ignorant your claims about science are, would you like to read your claims about carbon dating and climate change that show you are the ignorant one here again?

Your ignorance about science are echoed by your ignorance about taxation, the effect of high gini ratios on society and a functioning economy.

You have shown you can copy & paste, yet you have not shown you understand anything about science.

BTW you quoted me but were unable to show fault with any of my statements
1. Because you do not understand the subject matter. Explain half lives & their limitations. I dare you and I think it well beyond your capabilities
2. Because I am right

Now on to the current subject you do not understand and in this case you mistakenly think the best solution to a debt problem is to borrow more

1. Show us you understand by explaining how borrowing more solves a debt problem
be very specific on how the debt gets addressed or STFU

2. Name one country that has borrowed more to solve a debt crisis when GDP grow is low single digits?

You will not answer these questions mostly because you are too stupid , but also because the answers are not aligned with your nightmare commie vision for the world

Re functioning economy???
How is the socialist economy of venezuela functioning?
People are starving to death because the socialists screwed thing up so badly
How did that little socialist experiment in 1920s Russia work out?
Maybe 20-50 MM dead and several generations lost to decades of poverty, hopelessness and fear
Your ignorance & stupidity have no bounds

Your gini ratio issue is predicated on the false assumption that poverty can be solved via taxation.
the wealth redistribution you are demanding ignores property rights and is Commie 101 philosophy
NOT GOING TO HAPPEN

you want to tackle a unsolvable problem and you demand that other peoples money or borrowed money must be used
NOT GOING TO HAPPEN

Your ignorance compounded by your arrogance and propaganda efforts define you as a irresponsible fool

Frankfooter · Aug 19, 2018

JohnLarue said:
You have shown you can copy & paste, yet you have not shown you understand anything about science.

BTW you quoted me but were unable to show fault with any of my statements

I did show the problems with your statements previously, but if you prefer I'll repeat how idiotic your claims are.

JohnLarue said:
My position has been that It would be the biggest sin mankind ever committed if we cause our own extinction

1) Establishing that you accept that risks posited by climatologists are serious.

JohnLarue said:
I have also never said I know more than the scientists
To be fair I have also never said I do not

Refusing to accept that you do not know as much about climatology as thousands of scientists who have studied it their lives.
Egotistical, bordering on Dunning Kruger effect.

JohnLarue said:
Look stupid
I most certainly understand science better than some loud mouth, high school drop-out who can not calculate a weighted average
I searched for extrapolation & found only one mention & that did not provide any indication there was not any extrapolation or estimations in any or all of the work
How can one state an ice core sample is 800,000 years old without extrapolation?

Ignorant claim based on total lack of understanding of the science used.

JohnLarue said:
Carbon dating is based upon half lives which requires exponential extrapulation
Your studies were using ice cores supposedly 800,000 years old

Ignorant claim based on the total lack of understanding of the science used.
Note that no mention is made of carbon dating as it is not used in paleoclimatology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#Reconstructing_ancient_climates

JohnLarue said:
Physicists have carefully measured the radioactive decay rates of parent radioisotopes in laboratories over the last 100 or so years and have found them to be essentially constant (within the measurement error margins). Furthermore, they have not been able to significantly change these decay rates by heat, pressure, or electrical and magnetic fields. So geologists have assumed these radioactive decay rates have been constant for billions of years.
However, this is an enormous extrapolation of seven orders of magnitude back through immense spans of unobserved time without any concrete proof that such an extrapolation is credible. Nevertheless, geologists insist the radioactive decay rates have always been constant, because it makes these radioactive clocks “work”!

In one sentence you admit that radioactive decay is a great tool with rates that are 'essentially constant' yet in the next sentence you claim using these same techniques wouldn't be 'credible'.

JohnLarue said:
.
Anything over 5,000 years is pushing it and will introduce experimental errors which grow exponentially the further you push out from 5,000 years

Ignorant claim based on your very stupid focus on a technique not used in paleoclimatology.

JohnLarue said:
I admit nothing

And the capper, where you note that you refuse to admit you ever make a mistake.
This post will be copy and pasted every time you make a claim about my ignorance of science.
Fair?

bluecolt · Aug 19, 2018

Ref said:
LOL! I take it that you do not earn anything near this amount of money because if you did there are very few "accounting tricks" that can deployed to make a dent in the taxes. The marginal tax rate is 43%.

Do you think that people earning a gross income of $120K live in mansions with butlers, maids, chauffeurs, etc. and have an endless supply of cash to burn?

Ref, you are right. Unlike some morons on this site who have no understanding of economics or even common sense because they are only 15 to 17 years old and all they know is from their Grade 12 teachers, your assertions are generally correct. Being in the financial area for over 40 many years and having contributed articles to a number of publications, I have yet to find many individuals who have held cash in foreign countries or have hired high-priced lawyers to beat the taxman. For a person making up to a million dollars a year, this would be prohibitive in cost and effort. The only entities that would be involved would generally be politically-connected persons such as Minister of Finance Morneau, the Irvings and Mr Hypocrite himself, Paul Martin, Jr., who helped pass a tax bill that included a tax exemption and break for his own Barbados-based Canada Steamship Lines. The ordinary rich guy just grins and bears the 55% + tax burden.

The OP was incorrect in the calculations of the Canadian tax burden. The poll he suggested included only Federal tax and was, hence, very misleading. Add to that total, Provincial tax, the Health premium, HST, property taxes, license stickers, tire taxes, excise taxes, gas, liquor and cigarette taxes and your head will spin accordingly. The figure advanced by the Fraser Institute was probably low.

Thank you, Ref, for your enlightened post. It was more cogent than the dross that was contributed by the more useless contributors to this thread.

JohnLarue · Aug 20, 2018

Frankfooter said:
I did show the problems with your statements previously, but if you prefer I'll repeat how idiotic your claims are.

Click to expand...

Nope you proved nothing, so no need to repeat your stupidity
However I will show you why you are a fool

1) Establishing that you accept that risks posited by climatologists are serious.

Click to expand...

I never said other wise. If the panet heats up we are all turning to ash
No getting around that is a risky outcome

What I do not agree with is your absolute position that
a) it is man made. The climate on this planet has constantly been evolving long before man appeared & likely will change again long after we are gone
b) we can control it
c) that it is possible to eliminate fossil fuel use
d) Taxation is the proposed solution to a problem we may not be able to solve

Now pay attention: It is your absolute position that is problem

Refusing to accept that you do not know as much about climatology as thousands of scientists who have studied it their lives.
Egotistical, bordering on Dunning Kruger effect.

Click to expand...

What part of "I have also never said I know more than the scientists" do you not understand

Originally Posted by JohnLarue View Post
I have also never said I know more than the scientists
To be fair I have also never said I do not

Click to expand...

I tell you explicitly " I have also never said I know more than the scientists" and you claim I do just the exact opposite
STFU you low life POS

Ignorant claim based on total lack of understanding of the science used.

Click to expand...

Look stupid, you have proven yourself to be a scientific moron,I have asked you several time to explain away the extrapolation issue. Sadly for you you do not understand the science or the issue , so you do not explain it
So having a scientific moron claim I do not understand is beyond comical.

You just keep on painting yourself as a lying misleading fool who can not do simple math or process simple grade 6 level logic

Ignorant claim based on the total lack of understanding of the science used.
Note that no mention is made of carbon dating as it is not used in paleoclimatology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#Reconstructing_ancient_climates

Click to expand...

As pointed out to you there will be extrapolation if it as historical study greater than recorded history
Any extrapolation negates your absolute position.

Now if you understood that, which you do not, you would know what a damn fool you have been

In one sentence you admit that radioactive decay is a great tool with rates that are 'essentially constant' yet in the next sentence you claim using these same techniques wouldn't be 'credible'.

Click to expand...

Read it again stupid
It points out the issue with extrapolation
You are such a simpleton

Ignorant claim based on your very stupid focus on a technique not used in paleoclimatology.

Click to expand...

Absolutely not
any technique which uses extrapolation has the same issue & if you date back further than recorded history (approx 5000 years) extrapolation is used
You really need to stop embarrassing yourself like this
Stay away from subjects where you clearly do not understand the subject matter.
Your true understand of science is abysmal & yet you have taken an absolute position based upon your political ideology and are trying to hide behind peoples belief that science is absolute & beyond question

That is either extremely stupid or unbelievable corrupt

And the capper, where you note that you refuse to admit you ever make a mistake.
This post will be copy and pasted every time you make a claim about my ignorance of science.
Fair?

Click to expand...

I have made mistakes & have admitted to doing so on this board. I will also likely make mistakes in the future
But not about identifying your scientific ignorance. That is no mistake
and there is no getting around your scientific ignorance. You truly do not understand what you are saying is absolute.
Anyone with college level science training or higher would be able to pick this out by reading your posts

Please explain the theory behind 1/2 lives & how is the theory applied experimentally and then explain the limitations on the technique?
That should be a simple question for someone who claims he is absolutely right on Man made climate change

You has absolutely no right to call other deniers when you are so damn ignorant about the science.

Boober69 · Aug 20, 2018

shack said:
Too bad you can't follow the conversation. The discussion is about taxes.

You have permission to ask me a question once you have figured it out. Otherwise you are just a boob.

First off, I don't need your permission...ever. You should be honoured that I ask you a question.

Second, if you can't answer my question, then move on rather than deflecting to something else.

Lastly, taxes, and increasing the taxes on rich people are absolutely part of the tax discussion. Almost any thread you can find on here has people saying the rich should pay more.
My question still stands.

Frankfooter · Aug 20, 2018

JohnLarue said:
If the panet heats up we are all turning to ash
No getting around that is a risky outcome

Its a high risk situation with near certitude.
The odds are against your stance.

What I do not agree with is your absolute position that
a) it is man made. The climate on this planet has constantly been evolving long before man appeared & likely will change again long after we are gone
b) we can control it
c) that it is possible to eliminate fossil fuel use
d) Taxation is the proposed solution to a problem we may not be able to solve

a) That is the consensus of science, where 97% agree with 95% confidence levels. The correct term is 'near certitude' but that's beyond your comprehension.
b) It is possible but will be very costly, though way less costly then 2-4ºC global temp increase
c) It is possible but will be very costly, though way less costly then 2-4ºC global temp increase
d) taxation is but one prong of what needs to be a massive change

What part of "I have also never said I know more than the scientists" do you not understand

this part:

JohnLarue said:
I have also never said I know more than the scientists
To be fair I have also never said I do not

STFU you low life POS
Look stupid, .. moron,.. scientific moron claim
I do not understand...
lying misleading fool

Closest a larue posts gets to using logic.

As pointed out to you there will be extrapolation

Scientifically illiterate claim based on total lack of understanding of techniques used and the science they are based on.

Larue, you suffer from dunning kruger effect and are so full of yourself you will never be able to learn anything new.
Which is why you will never accept the science or the views of scientists yet still think you are smarter then them and in the right.
http://whatweknow.aaas.org/

K Douglas · Aug 21, 2018

As one who deals with tax on an almost daily basis I would suggest that the Fraser Institute's numbers are not far off at all. Just ask yourself when is tax freedom day in Canada - June 9. That is 160 days out of 365 in year or 43.8%.

Taxes are just not income taxes. There are payroll taxes, consumption (sales) taxes, excise taxes, property taxes, estate taxes, not to mention user fees and regulatory charges like vehicle registration fees, airport improvement fee, highway tolls, permit fees for parking, house renovations. Not sure if the user fees are even taken into account in the calculation to be honest.

shack · Aug 21, 2018

Boober69 said:
Second, if you can't answer my question, then move on rather than deflecting to something else. You should be honoured that I ask you a question.

Actually, you are the one off topic.

You asked "if it is a crime for people to make a lot of money?" This discussion is not about how much money they make, but how much they should pay in taxes. Your question was totally irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Actually, I will grant you a pass (you should be honoured). I don't believe that you intentionally deflected. I believe you can't help it as it is simply your lack of reading comprehension and you can't control what your brain is or is not capable of processing.

shack · Aug 21, 2018

JohnLarue said:
I never said other wise. If the panet heats up we are all turning to ash
No getting around that is a risky outcome

But in spite of admitting global warming is a danger (whether man made or not) you advocate not trying to do something to stem the tide?

JohnLarue · Aug 21, 2018

Frankfooter said:
Its a high risk situation with near certitude.

Ah, near certainty
Yet you claim it is absolute & will not permit any descent

The odds are against your stance.

actually since your absolute position implies all of the following must be true, the odds are quite high one of these conditions is incoorect

a) it is man made. The climate on this planet has constantly been evolving long before man appeared & likely will change again long after we are gone
b) we can control it
c) that it is possible to eliminate fossil fuel use
d) Taxation is the proposed solution to a problem we may not be able to solve

Your depth of thinking is so shallow

a) That is the consensus of science, where 97% agree with 95% confidence levels. The correct term is 'near certitude' but that's beyond your comprehension.

Yeah we have discussed the issues with your survey numbers, where the author assigned others positions for them
What are the odds his opinion did not sway the numbers
That aside A consensus is not scientific fact stupid, & it most certainly does not mean absolute especially for such a politicized issue and it most certainly does give you the right to dismiss a dissenting view

b) It is possible but will be very costly, though way less costly then 2-4ºC global temp increase
c) It is possible but will be very costly, though way less costly then 2-4ºC global temp increase

Both of these are predicated on the assumptions that climate change is man made & that we can control it
There is no way in hell you can be absolute about either of them.

d) taxation is but one prong of what needs to be a massive change

You are going to so disappointed as you will never get the coordinated effort from the big emitters on this
as long as one doses not participate the others will stay competitive
You screwed your cause the minute you politicized it and the second the word denier was used

Why is it stupid left wingers who are too stupid to understand the issue alway think they can control it?

this part:

It is a statement of fact
I have never said I know more than the scientists
To be fair I have also never said I do not

Closest a larue posts gets to using logic.

Too funny, you are incapable of apply even the simplest of logic, yet you somehow think you can judge others application of logic
you are a self deluding moron incapable of compromise, an extremely repulsive combination
I fart in your general direction

Scientifically illiterate claim based on total lack of understanding of techniques used and the science they are based on.

No, No & more No.
You are a scientific know nothing who refuses to address any specific question requiring scientific understanding
Your grade 7 level science trian does not qualify you to judge others understanding of matters which you do not understand yourself

Get this through your head. I have forgotten more about science than you will ever understand

Now hopefully for the last time I will tell you that any technique which dates anything older recorded history requires extrapolation
This is a mathematical fact, which you apparently are incapable of understanding

Explain to us how you date anything 5,000 + years old without using extrapolation?
It is mathematically impossible

And extrapolation nullifies the absolute in your Absolute position
GET IT NOW?

Larue, you suffer from dunning kruger effect and are so full of yourself you will never be able to learn anything new.

What you suffer from is stupidity & a pathological need to mislead others driven by your ideological political views
Ignorant & morally corrupt is a really bad combo

Which is why you will never accept the science or the views of scientists yet still think you are smarter then them and in the right.

You still do not get it
It is your absolute position which is the problem
There is lots of room for skepticism when the conclusion is based upon historical extrapolated data
Ask any other scientist & they will tell the same damn thing unless they have abandoned scientific principles in exchange for enviro warrior status

The amount you truly understand is a joke for someone who thinks he absolutely correct and labels dissenting views as deniers
Face it you are too stupid to take the position you have

JohnLarue · Aug 21, 2018

shack said:
But in spite of admitting global warming is a danger (whether man made or not) you advocate not trying to do something to stem the tide?

I never said that either
what I did say is it is unclear that we can control it (if it is not man made, the outcome is a done deal)
I also have been clear that what efforts Canada makes will not tip the scale
Without the US, Russia ,China , Brazil India on board, all we will be doing is damaging our economy

Most certainly the solution is not through taxation of the Canadian consumer & the Canadian economy

Search

Canadians Are Not Paying More In Taxes Than ‘The Necessities of Life'

JohnLarue

Well-known member

Boober69

Well-known member

Boober69

Well-known member

Boober69

Well-known member

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire

Frankfooter

dangling member

JohnLarue

Well-known member

Frankfooter

dangling member

bluecolt

Well-known member

JohnLarue

Well-known member

Boober69

Well-known member

Frankfooter

dangling member

K Douglas

Half Man Half Amazing

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire

JohnLarue

Well-known member

JohnLarue

Well-known member