Canadian Economy - Buoyant

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,610
3,184
113
All the answers to your questions are with the study.
Why don't you read it.
#1 it put me to sleep
#2. It put me to sleep

They are funded by NORFACE (New Opportunities for Research Funding Agency Cooperation in Europe) Welfare State Futures programme

Welfare state Futures???
Yeah they have no agenda
You won't read it, claim its wrong and won't back up your claims by even reading the study or checking its sources.
That's dogma, your attempt at arguments read like a religious wingnut defending their beliefs.
Dogma - The mother of the dog

Are all your claims based only on this dogma you call 'common sense'?
Common sense lets you now when someone is feeding you a load of garbage and passing it off as fine dining

Again, a simple question:
Would you still support Wealth Redistribution knowing it would adversely impact our economy?
A simple Yes or No answer is all that is required
 

guelph

Active member
May 25, 2002
1,500
0
36
77
It is not as simple as that
Paying EI and qualifying are two separate actions



It is legal, otherwise there would be no need / desire to change the laws


prove that

https://www.taxdisputehelp.ca/uncategorized/tax-problems-with-salaries-for-spouses-and-children/

Tax Problems with Salaries for Spouses and Children
POSTED August 22nd, 2012 BY Thomas Fellhauer 8 COMMENTS
Businesses are only required to pay income tax on their net income, which allows businesses to deduct expenses including wages, salaries and benefits. Family-owned and operated businesses will often pay salaries to family members for services provided to the business.
In some cases, the business owner will use salaries as a means of income splitting. Instead of paying a large salary to the business owner (who could be paying as much as 43.7% tax on that salary), salaries are paid to family members such as the business owner’s spouse or children. For example, if the business owner normally takes a salary of $180,000 per year, it is possible for the tax to be reduced substantially by reducing the business owner’s salary by $50,000 and instead paying a $50,000 salary to the spouse and/or children. As a result of the personal exemptions available, and the tax credits for students, it is possible for a family to save up to $22,000 per year with this simple strategy. It works because the tax rate on the high income earners is much higher than the tax paid by low income earners.
The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) is aware of this strategy CRA auditors routinely examine salaries in family-owned businesses. Under section 67 of the Income Tax Act, there is a special rule that says a deduction for an expense is not deductible unless it is reasonable. This is rarely applied to salaries of unrelated employees, but if the employee is related (for example, the employee is the spouse or child of the business owner), the CRA auditors will examine whether or not the salaries to the family members are “reasonable”. If they are considered unreasonable, the deduction for the salaries will be disallowed. This will increase the income of the business and result in additional tax (and interest) owing by the business. In some cases, the salaries may even be added to the business owner’s income at the highest rate without any corresponding deduction resulting in double taxation. And if it can be shown that the excessive salaries were knowingly paid, or circumstances amounting to gross negligence, 50% penalties may also be applied.
Unfortunately, there are no hard and fast rules as to what level of salary is reasonable and what is unreasonable. The most common test is to consider what services to the business were provided by the spouse and children and then to compare each of their salaries to what a similar business would pay to an unrelated employee to do the same thing.
As a result, detailed job descriptions for each family member are very important. As well, time sheets showing hours worked are important. We have seen problems where business owners pay children while the children are at University in another city. Often, justifying a salary in such circumstances is difficult to support. Or a spouse who does bookkeeping or banking and is paid a fulltime salary (for example $40,000 per year), and evidence shows that such work could actually be done by a part time clerk for a fraction of that cost.
This income splitting strategy has the potential to provide excellent annual tax savings, but must be planned and documented carefully. Planning before the fact is often safer than trying to fight this after you are audited. With the potential downside being double taxation and even penalties, it may not be worth the risk if you are too aggressive.
Income splitting is an excellent tax savings strategy. If this type of income splitting strategy is too difficult to do safely, you may want to consider less risky strategies such as family trusts.
 

guelph

Active member
May 25, 2002
1,500
0
36
77
It is not as simple as that
Paying EI and qualifying are two separate actions

https://globalnews.ca/news/3760022/tax-reform-mat-leave-benefits-doctors-women-small-businesses/

Can self-employed Canadian access “special” Employment Insurance benefits like maternity and parental leave? Yes, they can, despite what opponents of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s proposed tax changes suggest – though they may not receive much.


At the heart of the tax-change ruckus is whether self-employed Canadians, like many doctors and small-business owners, should be able to continue incorporating and benefiting from special tax rules (aka loopholes) other Canadians paying personal income taxes don’t enjoy.
 

guelph

Active member
May 25, 2002
1,500
0
36
77
It is not as simple as that


prove that
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/gabriel-yiu/corporate-tax-cuts_b_8140696.html


Then the Conservatives returned in 2006. Two years later we had the world financial tsunami, with recession and government finances back in red. That did not stop the Conservatives from further lowering the corporate income tax, from 21 per cent to 15 per cent.

Martin was excessive, but the Conservatives are reckless. The world and Canada were facing economic difficulties. Less corporate income tax did not boost the economy.

There are many international examples in the past two decades, be it Japan, Hong Kong or the U.S., which demonstrated that simply lowering corporate tax does not reverse the economy. If the economy could be boosted that easily, then Japan would not need to suffer their long and painful recession.

The big corporations and the right-wing think tanks, with the help of the corporate media, are keen to promote this kind of "tax cut solution." But I've not seen these free market guardians condemn the Hong Kong government for interfering with the financial market in the Asian financial crisis some years ago. Their inter-relatedness with regard to profits and interests are all too clear.

The fact is, it's the big corporations which truly benefited from corporate income tax cuts, and these are corporations with huge profits. It's because a money-losing business, especially during an economic downturn, basically doesn't need to pay any corporate income tax.

For small- and medium-size businesses, even when there is a profit after deducting all the expenses and depreciation, the tax being reduced is limited. Say if a small business has a profit of $100,000, 5 per cent of that is merely $5,000. However, to those big corporations which are making record profits year after year, a 5 per cent tax cut of a $2 billion profit is $100 million!

Indeed, this is how taxpayers' money has been given away to big and wealthy corporations. The Liberal Paul Martin's tax cuts had given away $100 billion! Yet, Canada's world competitiveness went downhill; our ranking dropped from #5 to #16 globally.

Surely the corporate media and the right-wing think tanks would scream and say, if we don't cut tax, the big corporations will leave and move their business elsewhere. Nonsense. Many studies conducted on CEOs have shown that, corporate tax is not a major factor in terms of business investment and operation. The more important factors are borrowing costs, skilled workers, professional expertise, electricity rate, transportation network, market penetration and land cost, etc.

When a big corporate invests and does business in Canada, it's because there is a market and it's profitable. It's that simple! If they cannot make a profit in Canada, they wouldn't stay even if the tax rate were zero.

From nearly 40 per cent in the 1970s to 15 per cent currently, how excessive have been the corporate tax cuts? Let's look at it from another angle.

Do you know the rate of our federal personal income tax? For the top earners, it's 29 per cent. It's almost double that of the corporate income tax rate.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
92,868
22,916
113
Dogma - The mother of the dog
Common sense lets you now when someone is feeding you a load of garbage and passing it off as fine dining
The lack of curiosity and intellectual rigour you show through these threads, where you refuse to investigate or defend your claims with anything of substance really do highlight the kind of mentality that doesn't succeed as an entrepreneur.

Again, a simple question:
Would you still support Wealth Redistribution knowing it would adversely impact our economy?
A simple Yes or No answer is all that is required
Your question is based on your own preconceptions and dogma.
Hypothetical questions based on false premises are not worthy of answers.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,610
3,184
113
https://globalnews.ca/news/3760022/tax-reform-mat-leave-benefits-doctors-women-small-businesses/

Can self-employed Canadian access “special” Employment Insurance benefits like maternity and parental leave? Yes, they can, despite what opponents of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s proposed tax changes suggest – though they may not receive much.


At the heart of the tax-change ruckus is whether self-employed Canadians, like many doctors and small-business owners, should be able to continue incorporating and benefiting from special tax rules (aka loopholes) other Canadians paying personal income taxes don’t enjoy.
Do you think EI will make up 100% for the lost cash flow these tax changes will cause?
No
Do you think EI will cover the debt service cost on the loans incurred to obtain an MD (several Hundred thousand)?
No

Do for female doctors who want a family EI as a response to this government introduced problem is a joke

So Female doctors get screwed
We are going to need all the doctors we currently have + many more (demographics)
They are well aware of attractive opportunities for medical professionals in the sunbelt of the US

Several years from now as you are told it will be an 18 month wait for your hip replacement, you can console yourself knowing Justin ensured Doctors were paying their "Fair Share"
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,610
3,184
113
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/gabriel-yiu/corporate-tax-cuts_b_8140696.html


Then the Conservatives returned in 2006. Two years later we had the world financial tsunami, with recession and government finances back in red. That did not stop the Conservatives from further lowering the corporate income tax, from 21 per cent to 15 per cent.

Martin was excessive, but the Conservatives are reckless. The world and Canada were facing economic difficulties. Less corporate income tax did not boost the economy.

There are many international examples in the past two decades, be it Japan, Hong Kong or the U.S., which demonstrated that simply lowering corporate tax does not reverse the economy. If the economy could be boosted that easily, then Japan would not need to suffer their long and painful recession.

The big corporations and the right-wing think tanks, with the help of the corporate media, are keen to promote this kind of "tax cut solution." But I've not seen these free market guardians condemn the Hong Kong government for interfering with the financial market in the Asian financial crisis some years ago. Their inter-relatedness with regard to profits and interests are all too clear.

The fact is, it's the big corporations which truly benefited from corporate income tax cuts, and these are corporations with huge profits. It's because a money-losing business, especially during an economic downturn, basically doesn't need to pay any corporate income tax.

For small- and medium-size businesses, even when there is a profit after deducting all the expenses and depreciation, the tax being reduced is limited. Say if a small business has a profit of $100,000, 5 per cent of that is merely $5,000. However, to those big corporations which are making record profits year after year, a 5 per cent tax cut of a $2 billion profit is $100 million!

Indeed, this is how taxpayers' money has been given away to big and wealthy corporations. The Liberal Paul Martin's tax cuts had given away $100 billion! Yet, Canada's world competitiveness went downhill; our ranking dropped from #5 to #16 globally.

Surely the corporate media and the right-wing think tanks would scream and say, if we don't cut tax, the big corporations will leave and move their business elsewhere. Nonsense. Many studies conducted on CEOs have shown that, corporate tax is not a major factor in terms of business investment and operation. The more important factors are borrowing costs, skilled workers, professional expertise, electricity rate, transportation network, market penetration and land cost, etc.

When a big corporate invests and does business in Canada, it's because there is a market and it's profitable. It's that simple! If they cannot make a profit in Canada, they wouldn't stay even if the tax rate were zero.

From nearly 40 per cent in the 1970s to 15 per cent currently, how excessive have been the corporate tax cuts? Let's look at it from another angle.

Do you know the rate of our federal personal income tax? For the top earners, it's 29 per cent. It's almost double that of the corporate income tax rate.
Actually when you combine in the provincial tax for top earners in Ontario I believe its 57.7%
What's the conclusion ?
we are tax far too much
yet Justin wants to tax our most productive citizens even more

It is government spending / borrowing at all levels which is the real issue, however instead of responsible spending we get our most productive and hard working citizens tax targeted ??
WTF ??
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,610
3,184
113
Your question is based on your own preconceptions and dogma.
Hypothetical questions based on false premises are not worthy of answers.
it is a very simple question
You refuse to answer the question because you are principled and will not lie so you can not say "No"
Saying yes shows you bias and true objective

Your refusal to answer can only be interpreted as a "Yes"
You would still support Wealth Redistribution knowing it would adversely impact our economy

And if that is the case you place your ideology above objective reasoning, careful judgement and the interest of other (Rich) Canadians
How can you claim to view this issue objectively ?
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,610
3,184
113
https://www.taxdisputehelp.ca/uncategorized/tax-problems-with-salaries-for-spouses-and-children/

Tax Problems with Salaries for Spouses and Children
POSTED August 22nd, 2012 BY Thomas Fellhauer 8 COMMENTS
Businesses are only required to pay income tax on their net income, which allows businesses to deduct expenses including wages, salaries and benefits. Family-owned and operated businesses will often pay salaries to family members for services provided to the business.
In some cases, the business owner will use salaries as a means of income splitting. Instead of paying a large salary to the business owner (who could be paying as much as 43.7% tax on that salary), salaries are paid to family members such as the business owner’s spouse or children. For example, if the business owner normally takes a salary of $180,000 per year, it is possible for the tax to be reduced substantially by reducing the business owner’s salary by $50,000 and instead paying a $50,000 salary to the spouse and/or children. As a result of the personal exemptions available, and the tax credits for students, it is possible for a family to save up to $22,000 per year with this simple strategy. It works because the tax rate on the high income earners is much higher than the tax paid by low income earners.
The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) is aware of this strategy CRA auditors routinely examine salaries in family-owned businesses. Under section 67 of the Income Tax Act, there is a special rule that says a deduction for an expense is not deductible unless it is reasonable. This is rarely applied to salaries of unrelated employees, but if the employee is related (for example, the employee is the spouse or child of the business owner), the CRA auditors will examine whether or not the salaries to the family members are “reasonable”. If they are considered unreasonable, the deduction for the salaries will be disallowed. This will increase the income of the business and result in additional tax (and interest) owing by the business. In some cases, the salaries may even be added to the business owner’s income at the highest rate without any corresponding deduction resulting in double taxation. And if it can be shown that the excessive salaries were knowingly paid, or circumstances amounting to gross negligence, 50% penalties may also be applied.
Unfortunately, there are no hard and fast rules as to what level of salary is reasonable and what is unreasonable. The most common test is to consider what services to the business were provided by the spouse and children and then to compare each of their salaries to what a similar business would pay to an unrelated employee to do the same thing.
As a result, detailed job descriptions for each family member are very important. As well, time sheets showing hours worked are important. We have seen problems where business owners pay children while the children are at University in another city. Often, justifying a salary in such circumstances is difficult to support. Or a spouse who does bookkeeping or banking and is paid a fulltime salary (for example $40,000 per year), and evidence shows that such work could actually be done by a part time clerk for a fraction of that cost.
This income splitting strategy has the potential to provide excellent annual tax savings, but must be planned and documented carefully. Planning before the fact is often safer than trying to fight this after you are audited. With the potential downside being double taxation and even penalties, it may not be worth the risk if you are too aggressive.
Income splitting is an excellent tax savings strategy. If this type of income splitting strategy is too difficult to do safely, you may want to consider less risky strategies such as family trusts.
As I stated it is currently legal
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
92,868
22,916
113
it is a very simple question
You refuse to answer the question because you are principled and will not lie so you can not say "No"
Saying yes shows you bias and true objective

Your refusal to answer can only be interpreted as a "Yes"
You would still support Wealth Redistribution knowing it would adversely impact our economy

And if that is the case you place your ideology above objective reasoning, careful judgement and the interest of other (Rich) Canadians
How can you claim to view this issue objectively ?
I see, so not only will you not read research you don't agree with, or sources you won't agree with, you'll now also not even listen to answers from those you don't agree with.

That sir, is an incredibly closed and narrow mind.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,610
3,184
113
At present the lines are unclear, so prosecution doesn't happen often.
But that doesn't make it legal, it makes it unenforced.
Under section 67 of the Income Tax Act, there is a special rule that says a deduction for an expense is not deductible unless it is reasonable.
So it is legal and the question is what is reasonable ?

Since 10% paying 40% of the load appears to be reasonable to the tax man, I suggest, "reasonable" has an extremely wide definition
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,610
3,184
113
I see, so not only will you not read research you don't agree with, or sources you won't agree with, you'll now also not even listen to answers from those you don't agree with.

That sir, is an incredibly closed and narrow mind.
You did not provide an answer so how could I agree or disagree with it????

Avoiding a direct question implies you fear the answer.
Prove me wrong

Again, a simple question:
Would you still support Wealth Redistribution knowing it would adversely impact our economy?
A simple Yes or No answer is all that is required
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
92,868
22,916
113
Under section 67 of the Income Tax Act, there is a special rule that says a deduction for an expense is not deductible unless it is reasonable.
So it is legal and the question is what is reasonable ?
Paying your kids when they don't work for you then would be unreasonable and illegal.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
92,868
22,916
113
You did not provide an answer so how could I agree or disagree with it????

Avoiding a direct question implies you fear the answer.
Prove me wrong

Again, a simple question:
Would you still support Wealth Redistribution knowing it would adversely impact our economy?
A simple Yes or No answer is all that is required
The simple answer is that your question is wrong.

The fed says that the divide between rich and poor and concentration of wealth has increased by 10% over the last 20 years yet the economy has not grown.
(In 1989, the top 1 percent owned 29.9 percent of the wealth in this survey. In 2016, it was up to 38.5 percent.)
https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/scfindex.htm

Your premise is faulty, there is no need to answer a hypothetical when we know that allowing the endgame of capitalization, the concentration of wealth, does not benefit the economy.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,610
3,184
113
The simple answer is that your question is wrong.

The fed says that the divide between rich and poor and concentration of wealth has increased by 10% over the last 20 years yet the economy has not grown.
(In 1989, the top 1 percent owned 29.9 percent of the wealth in this survey. In 2016, it was up to 38.5 percent.)
https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/scfindex.htm

Your premise is faulty, there is no need to answer a hypothetical when we know that allowing the endgame of capitalization, the concentration of wealth, does not benefit the economy.
That is not how one answers a simple yes or no question

Would you still support Wealth Redistribution knowing it would adversely impact our economy?

You either would or you would not
Avoiding the question just shows your uncomfortable with confirming one of the two choices
I am pretty sure it Yes

What the fed has to say about the divide between rich and poor is irrelevant to the question
Why try to avoid the question?

Your premise is faulty, there is no need to answer a hypothetical when we know that allowing the endgame of capitalization, the concentration of wealth, does not benefit the economy
Wealth creation is the end game and it is most certainly spread around better via private enterprise than by government
Ask any economist which has the higher multiple effect

taking more tax money away from private enterprise results in lower wealth creation i.e you make the pie smaller
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
92,868
22,916
113
What the fed has to say about the divide between rich and poor is irrelevant to the question
Why try to avoid the question?
The Fed says your question is based on a faulty premise.

Wealth creation is the end game
Wealth concentration is the end game, like a giant game of monopoly.
Is that the result you really want?
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,610
3,184
113
The Fed says your question is based on a faulty premise.
No they do not as I have never put that question to them
The Fed is not in the business of wealth re-distribution
Monetary policy to control inflation and encourage economic expansion is their arena

You say the premise is faulty
The only condition in which it is faulty is if there is absolutely zero possibility that wealth redistribution would cause any damage to the economy
And we all know that that is just plain not correct
So the premise is valid and the only issue is your willingness to be honest about your objective.
I believe your answer is yes and you are uncomfortable with confirming Yes

Wealth concentration is the end game, like a giant game of monopoly.
Is that the result you really want?
I said wealth creation. And it is not a game!

Allowing people to become rich, spurs innovation, risk taking and enriches the entire country.
As previously mention the multiplier effect via free enterprise is much greater than in the hands of government

Try stealing that wealth and it winds up in another country.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
92,868
22,916
113
No they do not as I have never put that question to them
The Fed is not in the business of wealth re-distribution
Monetary policy to control inflation and encourage economic expansion is their arena

You say the premise is faulty
The only condition in which it is faulty is if there is absolutely zero possibility that wealth redistribution would cause any damage to the economy
And we all know that that is just plain not correct
So the premise is valid and the only issue is your willingness to be honest about your objective.
I believe your answer is yes and you are uncomfortable with confirming Yes


I said wealth creation. And it is not a game!

Allowing people to become rich, spurs innovation, risk taking and enriches the entire country.
As previously mention the multiplier effect via free enterprise is much greater than in the hands of government

Try stealing that wealth and it winds up in another country.
Your arguments are so black and white they sound extremist.
The fed isn't in the business of politics, that report is just the numbers that come out and they show that the divide between rich and poor is increasing.
Yet the economy isn't getting better and you still think policies that would continue to concentrate wealth somehow will do the opposite of what they have been doing up until now.
That's just crazy, its you following your 'common sense' dogma approach relentlessly despite all the facts that show it to be wrongheaded.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,610
3,184
113
Your arguments are so black and white they sound extremist.
Really ? extremist ?
Is that what you call someone who does not share your ideals?

How would an extremist answer the following question?

Would you support wealth redistribution , knowing it would damage the economy?

The common answer would be "No"
An extremist would answer "Yes"

You avoid the question because you know you can not answer "No"


The fed isn't in the business of politics,
I never said it was
that report is just the numbers that come out and they show that the divide between rich and poor is increasing.
But they do not advocate wealth redistribution that is for sure

Yet the economy isn't getting better and you still think policies that would continue to concentrate wealth somehow will do the opposite of what they have been doing up until now.
Not necessarily
Identifying a problem is one thing, solving it is a completely different challenge
Often a simple solution like rob from the rich and give to the poor is not adequate
Your solution of wealth redistribution would cause far more damage than good. Period

That's just crazy,
What is crazy is demanding the right to tax the rich while ignoring the probable / possible downside
Worse than crazy, it is extremely irresponsible and it is theft

its you following your 'common sense' dogma approach relentlessly despite all the facts that show it to be wrongheaded.
Facts?
You mean like the facts that you provided indicating obesity and diabetes is due to poor people being forced to eat fast food?
Or the facts that you ignore like there has always been rich and poor people and you can not fix that ?


Again you avoid the question


Would you support wealth redistribution , knowing it would damage the economy?
 
Toronto Escorts