Canadian Economy - Buoyant

[Frankfooter]

If you want more tax dollars from a targeted group it is a higher burden
You just putting a different spin on it

the top 10 per cent earns 32 per cent of all income in Canada but pays 40 per cent of all taxes.
That certainly sounds like more than their fair share

Ok, we've established that increasing the gini coefficient has lead to a decline in life expectancy in the US.
(yes we did, check article linked above)

According to the conference board of canada, the divide between rich and poor is getting larger then it used to be, so yes we are talking about returning to previous and more healthy levels.

Canada gets a “C” grade and ranks 12th out of 17 peer countries.
Income inequality in Canada has increased over the past 20 years.
Since 1990, the richest group of Canadians has increased its share of total national income, while the poorest and middle-income groups has lost share.

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/society/income-inequality.aspx

Their page is worth reading, and notes that the 2008 economic mess, caused by really rich people taking way too big risks, the ones who paid for that screwup were the middle class and poor.

 

[JohnLarue]

Ok, we've established that increasing the gini coefficient has lead to a decline in life expectancy in the US.
(yes we did, check article linked above)

Gini coefficient ?
Was not even mentions in your article and they gave a myriad of other reasons for the changes in life expectancies in the US
Particularly obesity

So no, we have not established inequality has lead to a decline in life expectancy in the US


As your article states

Much of the increase in mortality can be explained by obesity. In 2015, weight problems accounted for more than 10 percent of all American deaths, according to Christopher Murray, director of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, but just 7 percent in the U.K. and 3 percent in Japan.

Obesity will not b changed by re-distributing wealth

According to the conference board of canada, the divide between rich and poor is getting larger then it used to be, so yes we are talking about returning to previous and more healthy levels.

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/society/income-inequality.aspx

You can not control the divide between rich and poor period.
There have been rich and poor since coins were invented

previous and more healthy levels is your biased judgement call and can not be adjusted via tax policy

Their page is worth reading, and notes that the 2008 economic mess, caused by really rich people taking way too big risks, the ones who paid for that screwup were the middle class and poor.

So the people who borrowed too and knew they were over extended much bear absolutely zero responsibility ?
By age 10 most of know bad out comes can result from excessive borrowing
Buyer beware

FYI
It was not the rich who assuming too much risk, it was a number of US financial intuitions who were not discipline in their approach to risk management

You are determined to justify tax targeting those who make more than you
But your rationales are easily rebutted

Mathematical question for you

Q1. If 10% pay 40% of all taxes and an overly aggressive tax policy drives a net 5-7% of those top 10% earners to leave every year, how many years before the tax burden on the middle class increases from the current 60% to 70 % ?
Q2. How many extra billion is 10% of all Canadian tax revenue?
Q3. Any idea what that equates to per middle class tx payer per year? (these may be your kids !)

 

[Frankfooter]

Gini coefficient ?
Was not even mentions in your article and they gave a myriad of other reasons for the changes in life expectancies in the US
Particularly obesity

So no, we have not established inequality has lead to a decline in life expectancy in the US

Here is the study referenced in the article that says US life expectancy would be about 4 years longer with more liberal social policies.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953616305858

I've got science on my side.
Beats your personal opinion.

Mathematical question for you

Q1. If 10% pay 40% of all taxes and an overly aggressive tax policy drives a net 5-7% of those top 10% earners to leave every year, how many years before the tax burden on the middle class increases from the current 60% to 70 % ?

As shown previously, we had higher taxation on the super rich in previous decades.
They didn't leave then.

Your hypothetical question is based on a faulty premise, and as such isn't worth considering.

 

[bver_hunter]

the top 10 per cent earns 32 per cent of all income in Canada but pays 40 per cent of all taxes.
That certainly sounds like more than their fair share

The ones paying more than their fair share do not have to worry as it is not part of the "loophole".

 

[JohnLarue]

Here is the study referenced in the article that says US life expectancy would be about 4 years longer with more liberal social policies.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953616305858

I've got science on my side.
Beats your personal opinion.

You call that science ?

The primary causes in your own article are obesity , diabetes and heart attacks
Taxing the rich will not bring the incidents of those issues down

What a joke!

As shown previously, we had higher taxation on the super rich in previous decades.
They didn't leave then.

Your hypothetical question is based on a faulty premise, and as such isn't worth considering.

not worth considering ?
You ignore what you do not want to hear.

Sound policy making does not just dismiss risks in an off hand way

I do not believe (other than during war years) Canadians have ever been so heavily taxed.
Your 'previous decades" study was based in the USA during war years as I recall. Less mobility during war and patriotism may be factors i.e knowing the tax dollars were being spent defending your country.

As opposed to paying 57.7% marginal tax , knowing a good portion will be wasted ( at least 20%) and spent on a myriad of social programs you may or may not believe in
Or worse knowing 15-25% will go to servicing the debt previous liberal governments spent

You should not dismiss this risk so quickly
So it is not a faulty premise



Should any significant decline in tax revenue from the rich occur, it would be the middle class who would have to pony up the difference
Most middle class Canadians have loaded up on debt ( at low interest rates)
An extra 10-15 % tax burden on them and you will have an economic disaster

Only foolhardy people would ignore this.

 

[JohnLarue]

The ones paying more than their fair share do not have to worry as it is not part of the "loophole".

Why should anyone pay more than their fair share?
How in the world is that fair?
And that is Justin's entire justification for his attack on Small Business ?

 

[bver_hunter]

Why should anyone pay more than their fair share?
How in the world is that fair?
And that is Justin's entire justification for his attack on Small Business ?

The fact is that they did so under Stevie as well. Also if that is the case why should the middle class pay more taxes than some of the business men who take advantage of the loopholes?

 

[Frankfooter]

You call that science ?

....


You ignore what you do not want to hear.

..
I do not believe (other than during war years) Canadians have ever been so heavily taxed.

You were given a report and a study that backed up my claims and what did you do you 'ignored what you didn't want to hear'.
Your views are based on dogma, not on reality.

And its witnessed by statements like this:

Should any significant decline in tax revenue from the rich occur, it would be the middle class who would have to pony up the difference
Most middle class Canadians have loaded up on debt ( at low interest rates)
An extra 10-15 % tax burden on them and you will have an economic disaster

We are talking about taxing the rich and not the middle class, your claims that the rich would leave if taxes are raised are pure conjecture based off of your dogma, not reality.

The number of new businesses has been declining since the '70's, largely due to corporate consolidation.
That again is an example of what happens when you run your country as an oligarchy, where corporations can buy rule changes that favour them.
They'll pay it back through mergers and the end of competition.

Same difference, and same arguments.
If you want a healthy economy and country, you need laws that keep the rich from gaming the system.
More so if you support small businesses.

Good luck with your new business competing with amazon or walmart, for instance.

John Oliver nails the subject.
https://youtu.be/fCufW71qL-U

 

[JohnLarue]

The fact is that they did so under Stevie as well. Also if that is the case why should the middle class pay more taxes than some of the business men who take advantage of the loopholes?

That is not answering the question

Why should anyone pay more than their fair share?
How in the world is that fair?
And that is Justin's entire justification for his attack on Small Business ?

 

[JohnLarue]

You were given a report and a study that backed up my claims and what did you do you 'ignored what you didn't want to hear'.
Your views are based on dogma, not on reality.

You want to justify a highly controversial economic policy with a paper by a sociologist ?
Come on please be realistic here

And its witnessed by statements like this:

Actually that is reality
If the rich stop putting their money to work (ie. let it sleep for a couple of years) where will the short fall in tax revenue come from?
Justin's already borrowing more than he should , so those that are currently paying 60% would have to pay more, assuming he does not reduce expenditures
What am I saying?
He will not do that

Your tax the rich scheme will have an upper limit. And there will be economic pain when the limit is hit
That is a certainty
It is also incompatible with Justin's goals to spend and borrow without a plan to get to budget balance
i.e. the size of the require tax revenue pie will increase every year

We are talking about taxing the rich and not the middle class, your claims that the rich would leave if taxes are raised are pure conjecture based off of your dogma, not reality.

Nope
As some point wealthy people will not put money at risk to give the majority to the government

The number of new businesses has been declining since the '70's, largely due to corporate consolidation.
That again is an example of what happens when you run your country as an oligarchy, where corporations can buy rule changes that favour them.
They'll pay it back through mergers and the end of competition.

New business are starting all the time
New millionaires are made every day

If you want to worry about something ponder the impact of automation and artificial intelligence on employment
the lower educated segment of the workforce is going to get decimated

Issues you can not control, nor should you try
And certainly not with taxation policy

Your solution: Government intervention and taxation . Wrong!
better solution: More focused education

Same difference, and same arguments.
If you want a healthy economy and country, you need laws that keep the rich from gaming the system.

Gaming the system??
Again very cynical
You are predisposed to see the robber barons around every corner
How in the world can you be objective

Again more government intervention.
the surest way to wreak an economy

More so if you support small businesses.

You mean like the new tax law changes for small business?
Some how I just can not view those as supportive

Good luck with your new business competing with amazon or walmart, for instance.

The Canadian economy will become more service oriented
Making and selling widgets???
That was going to Asia regardless of tax policy

 

[Frankfooter]

If the rich stop putting their money to work (ie. let it sleep for a couple of years) where will the short fall in tax revenue come from?

Conjecture.

New business are starting all the time
New millionaires are made every day

Just because real estate has made everyone with a house in Toronto a millionaire on paper doesn't mean small businesses are increasing.
New business starts have been declining for decades now.

If you want to worry about something ponder the impact of automation and artificial intelligence on employment
the lower educated segment of the workforce is going to get decimated
...
better solution: More focused education
...
The Canadian economy will become more service oriented
Making and selling widgets???
That was going to Asia regardless of tax policy

Nice solution, you say jobs are being lost to automation and global trade and the solution is better education so people can get the new great jobs at.....wait for it......
McDonalds?
(or the 'service industry' as you call it)

Some plan you've got there.

 

[bver_hunter]

That is not answering the question

Why should anyone pay more than their fair share?
How in the world is that fair?
And that is Justin's entire justification for his attack on Small Business ?

You seem to be contradicting yourself. What do you set as the "fair share"?
So if the fair share is what the business men pay in taxes when they exploit the loopholes, why should the middle class have to then pay "more than their fair share" of the taxes? The middle class paid more under Stephen, until Mr. Trudeau reduced the taxes.

 

[fuji]

Lie and deny is always your plan

Not a response.

This wins:

"You had NO ANSWER to points that businesses that don't grow don't drive growth. NO ANSWER.

You had NO ANSWER to the point that businesses making passive investments believe their own growth rate is less than the publicly traded markets.

You had NO ANSWER to the point that growing businesses fold their earnings back into their business and don't report profits."

 

[JohnLarue]

Not a response.

This wins:

"You had NO ANSWER to points that businesses that don't grow don't drive growth. NO ANSWER.

You had NO ANSWER to the point that businesses making passive investments believe their own growth rate is less than the publicly traded markets.

You had NO ANSWER to the point that growing businesses fold their earnings back into their business and don't report profits."

Yawn
Gee where have I heard this garbage before?

Is there any real point in answering questions from someone who has never admitted being wrong in over 80,000 posts and who lies?

 

[JohnLarue]

You seem to be contradicting yourself. What do you set as the "fair share"?

I am certainly not contradicting myself
What do I set as fair share?
1. A whole lot less taxes for all would be a start. too bad that will not happen because Justin's old man borrow in my name 30 years ago
2. Certainty not 40% paid by 10% . That is inappropriate no matter who they are.

So if the fair share is what the business men pay in taxes when they exploit the loopholes, why should the middle class have to then pay "more than their fair share" of the taxes?

1. your choice of words shows you bias and the inability to view this with any objectivity
2. Well if you are going to apply taxes based on what is fair, rather than what is best for the country. Small business directly employ people. The middle class not so much. That is hardly fair now is it?
3. Given 10% pay 40%, then remaining 90% of the population pay less than 60%. (the article did not explicitly state if corporate taxes were excluded), so if you insist on making sure the tax system is above all else "fair" , then that 90% population really needs to pony up more.

In the real word no politician would do that because he would lose the next election. so political consideration out weight the need to be fair
i.e it is impossible for Justin's definition of "fair" to really be fair

your justification is even more self serving
"They can afford it" does not give you the right to stick your hand in their wallet via taxation

The middle class paid more under Stephen, until Mr. Trudeau reduced the taxes.

And Stephen lowered the GST, so everyone paid less taxes than under Jean.
Your point is moot
Yes we all know how much you hate Mr. Harper
Give it a rest, the bad man can not hurt you now

 

[JohnLarue]

Conjecture.

Perhaps some business courses may enlighten you
If you think that is conjecture ??

Just because real estate has made everyone with a house in Toronto a millionaire on paper doesn't mean small businesses are increasing.
New business starts have been declining for decades now.

New business (ex Real Estate) are starting all the time
New millionaires (ex real Estate) are made every day

Nice solution, you say jobs are being lost to automation and global trade and the solution is better education so people can get the new great jobs at.....wait for it......
McDonalds?
(or the 'service industry' as you call it)

Again a very cynical view
There will be employment disruption as a result of automation and artificial intelligence
That will happen, regardless of your cynical flippant response

So what is the best approach

One or the other- Justin has already earmarked a big debt increase for infrastructure spending.
1. Greatly increase the size of the nanny state through massive increases in welfare and unemployment benefits
2. Ensure the next generation is equipped to be a part of the change

Some plan you've got there.

What your plan ?
Do we just keep growing the nanny state, subsidizing more and more people with govt benefits and taxing the rich until they are rich no more?
Then what?

 

[Frankfooter]

Perhaps some business courses may enlighten you
If you think that is conjecture ??

You don't understand how this works.
If you make a claim and can't back it up with facts, evidence, studies or anything other then personal opinion, then its you that needs educating, not me.

There will be employment disruption as a result of automation and artificial intelligence
That will happen, regardless of your cynical flippant response

So what is the best approach

One or the other- Justin has already earmarked a big debt increase for infrastructure spending.
1. Greatly increase the size of the nanny state through massive increases in welfare and unemployment benefits
2. Ensure the next generation is equipped to be a part of the change

Glad to hear that you think Justin's plans are the only option.

What your plan ?
Do we just keep growing the nanny state, subsidizing more and more people with govt benefits and taxing the rich until they are rich no more?
Then what?

Yes, we steal all the wealth from the rich, until we are rich. Then, they can take a turn figuring out how to change the tax rules.
Flippant questions demand flippant answers.

Far better to consider Canada and its place on the social/free market spectrum, and where you'd prefer to go.

Now it sounds like you'd prefer the American model, with higher health care, lower life expectancy, massive race issues, massive inequality and a government of plutocrats making themselves rich.
Me, I'd prefer we trend back to Canadian taxation models a decade or two ago, before the tax breaks for the rich and corporations were put in place or based off more current European models.
I see those as more successful socially and economically.

 

[JohnLarue]

You don't understand how this works.
If you make a claim and can't back it up with facts, evidence, studies or anything other then personal opinion, then its you that needs educating, not me.

Common sense ?
Is that not permitted?
Unless a left leaning sociologist wrote it (publish or perish) you reject it outright.
I do not think so

Re education
Unless you understand how the wealthly and business evaluate capital opportunities (Risk vs Reward) how can you possibly have an objective view on how (much) to tax them?

Glad to hear that you think Justin's plans are the only option.

Absolutely not
He is going to spend, spend and increase our debt. Just like his daddy
Debt which took a generation and the GST to manage down
There will be nothing left in the cupboard to deal with what could be a fundamental and significant change in the workforce .

And to be clear. Justin does not have a plan...... to get back to balance.
That is extremely irresponsible

Yes, we steal all the wealth from the rich, until we are rich. Then, they can take a turn figuring out how to change the tax rules.
Flippant questions demand flippant answers.

Well your objective is to tax the rich in response to inequality, however you have no answer to
a) what happens when they put their money to sleep in order to avoid taxes or
b) they are no longer rich as inequality has been taxed away

Far better to consider Canada and its place on the social/free market spectrum, and where you'd prefer to go.

I noticed you put social ahead of the free market.
Your priorities are not well hidden
economic considerations need to have a priority as a broken economy will not support social objective

I repeat; It is not the governments responsibility to address inequality
And certainly not via taxation
1. It will not work
2. It is extremely risky taking money away from those that drive our economy

Now it sounds like you'd prefer the American model, with higher health care,

They have issues with health care expenses, however we pay a lot more in taxes for that health care
In addition demographics and escalating costs will make the Canadian health care model unsustainable

lower life expectancy,

Lifestyle choices, not tax policy

massive race issues,

That's not tax policy

massive inequality

That's not tax policy

and a government of plutocrats making themselves rich.

Our government has its own share of weasels who take care of them selves first
Ottawa is not immune to money changing hands
Our MPS also get pensions the rest of the country will never get
Again, none of this is relevant to tax policy

Me, I'd prefer we trend back to Canadian taxation models a decade or two ago, before the tax breaks for the rich and corporations were put in place or based off more current European models.
I see those as more successful socially and economically.

Again you place the social as a priority and you prefer where others pay more
Not in the best interest of the entire country

 

[Frankfooter]

Common sense ?
Is that not permitted?

We already had enough years of 'common sense' from Mike Harris.
Now've got the 407, Toronto amalgamation and offloaded services.

'Common sense' means you just think its true but you have no evidence to back it up.

Well your objective is to tax the rich in response to inequality, however you have no answer to
a) what happens when they put their money to sleep in order to avoid taxes or
b) they are no longer rich as inequality has been taxed away

Yawn. Same as they do now, only a little less so.

I repeat; It is not the governments responsibility to address inequality
And certainly not via taxation
1. It will not work
2. It is extremely risky taking money away from those that drive our economy

Redistribution through taxation is the only way that works.
The 'free market' system, with way fewer rules and regulations that you preach looks more like England during the dawn of industrialization, with no labour laws, child labour and deadly smog.

They have issues with health care expenses, however we pay a lot more in taxes for that health care
In addition demographics and escalating costs will make the Canadian health care model unsustainable

We pay more in taxes but we get more in social services (better public schools, more livable cities, better welfare etc...), including health care which is cheaper and better for the country then the US.
And yes, its better.
Check US vs Canada life expectancy.

 

[fuji]

Yawn
Gee where have I heard this garbage before?

Is there any real point in answering questions from someone who has never admitted being wrong in over 80,000 posts and who lies?

You can't answer. You're done. You had no reply on any of the substantive points.

Trudeau's closing of these tax loopholes is good policy, it will crack down on rent seeking behavior associated with flaws in the tax code. That will ultimately redirect capital to legitimate businesses and growing businesses and that will spur economic growth.