Allure Massage

Canadian Economy - Buoyant

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
92,060
22,383
113
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
Over the last 20 - 30 years taxes have been lowered on the 1% to the point where they have increased their wealth by 10-20%, according to the fed and other studies posted above.
Are you claiming that the tax laws and rules from 1950-1990 were 'crazy, extremely irresponsible and theft'?

That sounds very extreme to me.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,451
3,080
113
Over the last 20 - 30 years taxes have been lowered on the 1% to the point where they have increased their wealth by 10-20%, according to the fed and other studies posted above.
Are you claiming that the tax laws and rules from 1950-1990 were 'crazy, extremely irresponsible and theft'?

That sounds very extreme to me.
Not as extreme as
a) supporting wealth redistribution despite knowing it will hurt the economy
b) allowing the top 10% to pay 40% and still be looking for more
c) deciding other peoples wealth can be claimed
d) thinking you can sell this theft as "fair" despite the top 10% paying 40% of the load (how is that fair?)

Again you avoid the question


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

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
92,060
22,383
113
Not as extreme as
a) supporting wealth redistribution despite knowing it will hurt the economy
You can stop there as I've shown, through studies and stats, that your claim is wrong.
Wealth distribution doesn't have to hurt the economy.

Concentration of wealth is worse for the economy then high taxes.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,451
3,080
113
You can stop there as I've shown, through studies and stats, that your claim is wrong.
No you have not. Not even close
All your studies focus on the problems
None of them dive into the economics of the solution which you want

Wealth distribution doesn't have to hurt the economy.
but it will, guaranteed, no doubt about it, end of story
Not only that, but the government will waste so much that they will not solve the issue.

unless of coarse your goal is just to hurt the rich out of spite

Concentration of wealth is worse for the economy then high taxes.
That is your opinion and it is dead wrong
Prove it with something other than some study whining about how the poor are obese because they are forced to supersize their cola when they order the double cheese burger with fries and gravy,

Prove it with hard economic facts
For example show us how the moving money from free enterprise to government increases the economic multiplier effect. it does not

Again you avoid the question
Please answer
Would you support wealth redistribution , knowing it would damage the economy?
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
92,060
22,383
113
Prove it with hard economic facts
For example show us how the moving money from free enterprise to government increases the economic multiplier effect. it does not
I've given you plenty of facts, including stats from the fed.
You just ignore them if they disagree with your dogma, so here's another approach.

Here is one example of the concentration of wealth through corporations is bad for the economy and society.
IN NEW LAWSUIT, CORPORATIONS BAND TOGETHER TO STOP CONSUMERS FROM BANDING TOGETHER

A COALITION CONSISTING of the preeminent national business lobby, several financial services trade groups, and over a dozen business organizations in Texas have banded together — the way individuals might in a class-action lawsuit — to force the federal government to allow them to block class-action lawsuits.

Eighteen groups representing thousands of corporations and banks filed the lawsuit against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau last Friday in federal court in Dallas. Oddly, they did not attempt to individually resolve the dispute through an arbitration process, which they’ve consistently said yields speedier and better results for those wronged. “Arbitration gives consumers the ability to bring claims that they could not realistically assert in court,” the lawsuit reads.

But for corporations, banding together in courts apparently presents a better option.
https://theintercept.com/2017/10/06...arbitration-rule-lawsuit-equifax-wells-fargo/

In other words, as corporations become larger and control more of the market they collude with each other to bend the rules to their favour.

And here's another one:
The ultrawealthy have 10% of global GDP stashed in tax havens — and it’s making inequality worse than it appears
http://www.businessinsider.com/wealthy-money-offshore-makes-inequality-look-even-worse

How can it be good for 10% of global GDP to be stashed away?

Do you think both of those are good news stories?
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,451
3,080
113
I've given you plenty of facts, including stats from the fed.
You just ignore them if they disagree with your dogma, so here's another approach.
All you have provided is complaints
Again identifying a problem and applying a solution are two very different things

And your solution is flawed


Here is one example of the concentration of wealth through corporations is bad for the economy and society.

https://theintercept.com/2017/10/06...arbitration-rule-lawsuit-equifax-wells-fargo/

In other words, as corporations become larger and control more of the market they collude with each other to bend the rules to their favour.
Gee lets see
Banks in the US do something you feel is inappropriate and that somehow justifies your claim on other Canadians wealth ?
Give your head a rub


And here's another one:

http://www.businessinsider.com/wealthy-money-offshore-makes-inequality-look-even-worse

How can it be good for 10% of global GDP to be stashed away?

Do you think both of those are good news stories?
What do you expect ?
I told you they will put that money to sleep, long before giving it up in the name of wealth redistribution
as I have mentioned before
a) for every action one should expect a reaction
b) The top 10% pay 40% of all Canadian taxes and that is simply not fair. So if Justin wants a tax system that he can claim is above all else "Fair", he should address this first

Again you avoid the question
Please answer
Would you support wealth redistribution , knowing it would damage the economy?
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
29,418
7,288
113
112,000 full time jobs were created in September, and this is an impressive 10th straight month of jobs addition to the economy. This is the longest streak of jobs addition since 2008. The hourly wage also rose 2.2 per cent. The jobs addition was mainly in the production sector, i.e. 10,500 jobs. Ontario gained 34,700 new jobs, an increase for four months in a row. BC, Manitoba and Ontario have the lowest unemployment rates in Canada. Keep up the good work Mr. Trudeau.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/cana...-month-with-boost-in-full-time-work-1.3621970
 

guelph

Active member
May 25, 2002
1,500
0
36
77
I think this article can add some facts to the discussion.


https://www.thestar.com/business/2017/10/05/six-facts-you-need-to-know-about-ottawas-tax-reforms-olive.html


Six facts you need to know about Ottawa’s tax reforms
The debate over Ottawa’s tax reforms has been marred by a proliferation of falsehoods
akin to the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign. Here are the facts.

The proposed tax reforms of Minister of Finance Bill Morneau are aimed at the estimated $27 billion of surplus, or “passive,” funds accumulating in “professional medical corporations” and in incorporated small businesses.

By DAVID OLIVEBusiness Columnist
Fri., Oct. 6, 2017
Probably before the snow flies, the federal finance minister, Bill Morneau, will table a bill in Parliament that will take baby steps toward more fairness in our tax system.

The federal finance minister’s goal is to curb the use of incorporation as a tax-shelter device. The vast majority of people who incorporate are among the top 5 per cent of Canadian income earners. The current widespread misuse of this device is a means by which everyday taxpayers subsidize the wealthy.

For Ottawa, the nub of the issue is the estimated $27 billion of surplus, or “passive,” funds accumulating in “professional medical corporations” and in incorporated small businesses. Those passive funds benefit from the low small-business tax rate, but contribute nothing to the business. They serve to enrich the incorporated professional or entrepreneur at the expense of other taxpayers.

Ottawa proposes to raise the tax rate on those passive funds. It also seeks to restrict the practice of “income sprinkling,” by which small-business owners spread the company’s income among relatives with lower tax rates, who often aren’t involved in the business.

Ending those practices is essential, for obvious social-justice reasons. But more important is what this protracted debate tells us about the difficulty in achieving even minor reforms. The debate has been marred by a proliferation of falsehoods akin to the disastrous Brexit and 2016 U.S. presidential campaigns.

In its tax-reform initiative, Ottawa stands accused by vested interests of attacking the middle class, doctors, farm owners and small business.

Powerful special-interest groups say these modest tax changes will kill small-business job creation, prevent the transfer of family farms, and send over-taxed doctors fleeing to the U.S. Ottawa is also accused of springing these changes on those affected without warning.

Every one of those claims is a falsehood.


Fortunately, more Canadians among the quiet majority favour Ottawa’s bid for tax fairness than oppose it. Despite that, Morneau’s concession Wednesday that “changes are going to be required” to his reforms, without describing them, suggests Morneau is withering under the baseless criticism.

Fact: The proposed changes will affect – and only to a negligible degree – people making more than $150,000 a year. That’s not the middle class. Pretax income for the average Canadian worker is $49,510.


Fact: Justin Trudeau gave the affected parties a heads-up two years ago, when his party campaigned on – and won an electoral mandate for – precisely the tax reform introduced back in April. In 2015, Trudeau told the CBC, “A large percentage of small businesses are actually just ways for wealthier Canadians to save on their taxes, and we want to reward the people who are actually creating jobs.”

Fact: Only about 60 per cent of doctors choose to incorporate, meaning four in 10 docs will not be affected by the reforms. And all docs will still be able to write off their operating and capital costs. The only change for doctors who practise in a private corporation is a higher tax rate on the surplus, or “passive,” funds accumulating in their corporations. Those funds, often invested in stocks and real estate, are currently taxed at the low small-business rate though they contribute nothing to healthcare.

Fact: More than two-thirds of Canadian small-business owners earn less than $73,000, and will not be affected by the proposed tax reforms. And again, all small businesses can continue to write off legitimate business expenses.

Ottawa will continue to subsidize small business with the low small-business tax rate, which costs Canadian taxpayers $3.6 billion a year in forgone revenues.


Ottawa alone also provides about 550 assistance programs for small business, including grants, low-interest loans, tax refunds and credits, loan guarantees, and wage subsidies. Those are matched by assistance from municipalities and every province and territory. That is an inconvenient fact for the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB), the biggest small-biz lobby, which has come close to branding Morneau an anti-capitalist.

Fact: Farm owners, who lately have backed off their initial objections to Morneau’s reforms, will continue to benefit from the $1-million Lifetime Capital Gains Exemption for transferring ownership of family farms.

For the past decade, leading economies have been cracking down on the use of exotic offshore tax havens. But we’ve learned from this summer’s protracted tax controversy that we have thousands of tax havens here at home, tucked inside medical practices, auto-repair shops, plumbing firms and other small businesses.

Fact: By 2016, Canada could boast more than 84,000 doctors. We now have a record 230 docs per 100,000 people, billing the government about $339,000 a year on average, or a total of $25.7 billion. Family physicians bill about $275,000 per year, specialty surgeons earn about $461,000.

Morneau is also being roasted by the mighty Canadian Medical Association (CMA) and some of its provincial counterparts. It’s worth noting that the CMA, no friend of Canadian medical patients, also fought the advent of Medicare in 1962 in Saskatchewan, and then tried to thwart Medicare’s 1966 national rollout.

The silence of the Canadian public in letting vested interests dominate this debate has been countered by a few voices of common sense.

Almost 500 doctors and med students have signed a petition urging Ottawa to press on with tax fairness. “We need adequate tax revenues to fund social programs such as affordable housing, pharmacare, social assistance, legal aid, and the health-care system itself,” the petition states.

“These programs directly impact the health of our patients, and we believe it is important for us to contribute to their sustainability through an adequate tax base.”


And here’s Dennis Howlett, executive director of the five-year-old Canadians for Tax Fairness advocacy group, testifying last month on the reform issue to the federal House finance committee:

“It is not fair for business owners to be given extra subsidized retirement savings room (through passive investments) that their own staff and the average Canadian cannot access.”

And that’s not the most sobering point Howlett makes.

This summer’s skirmish over a minor change in tax law has sidelined issues of far greater concern. As Howlett puts it, “There are kids dying from bad water in Indigenous reserves while we debate whether or not the wealthy should get to keep unfair tax breaks.”

In a parliamentary democracy like Canada, special interests routinely hijack the public agenda, abetted by a credulous news media and a timid silent majority. We pay a heavy price for that.

It is said that bad things happen when good people do nothing. It’s also true that corrosive problems go unattended when good people are distracted by specious issues like this one.
 

guelph

Active member
May 25, 2002
1,500
0
36
77
Here is a website that will balance some of the comments


http://www.taxfairness.ca/

Dispelling the Myths on Closing Private Corporations Tax Loopholes

In July the federal government announced consultations on proposed changes to tax loopholes that allow some wealthy Canadians to reduce their taxes using private corporations. The changes would be limited to: ending dividend sprinkling to family members who don't work for the business, restricting passive corporate investments that compete with job creating investments and reduce tax revenues and limiting the ability to use capital gains to reduce income tax. The proposals have been getting a lot of attention in the media. Some legitimate issues are being raised, but there is a lot of mis-information and also blatant falsehoods that are being circulated by opponents to these tax reforms.
These reforms are not an attack on the middle class – To significantly benefit from using those loopholes, a person would need to earn at least $150,000. In other words, those earning less than $150,000 will not be noticeably affected.
The research clearly shows that the wealthy are far more likely than a middle or lower income Canadian to own a private corporation and that the wealthy are far more likely to take advantage of these tax loopholes. Less than 10% of those with incomes under $51,600 had a significant interest in a private company. For the top 1 percenters about 50 percent own a significant interest in a private company and for the top 0.01% the number rises dramatically to almost 80%.
The reforms are not an attack on small business – Statistics Canada data shows a large majority of small business owners are earning less than $150,000 per year, and 2/3 are earning less than $73,000. Thus, most small businesses would not be noticeably impacted by the proposed changes. Small businesses will, however, continue to benefit from the regular lower small business tax rate, a significant $3.6 billion taxpayer subsidy.
People who use these loopholes are not tax abusers or tax cheats – This debate is about a poorly articulated and enforced tax structure that is being used for purposes it was not intended. The loopholes are being used legally and legitimately but are unfair. It is the government’s job to fix this.

Business owners will still be able to save for retirement – Existing passive investments will be grandfathered. Business owners also have access to the same RRSP/RPP/TFSA contribution limits (at 18% of income up to $26,000 a year) as everyone else.
These are already disproportionately accessed by the wealthy and are heavily subsidized by taxpayers to the tune of $16 billion a year. It is not fair for business owners to be given extra subsidized retirement savings room (through passive investments) that their own staff and the average Canadian cannot access. If public pensions are not adequate, the solution is to improve pensions for all, not boutique tax treatment for a privileged few.
This does not penalize job creators – Active investment in business operations and employment is not affected. This does not penalize and, in fact, should help to incent employment. It refocuses the small business tax advantage on active investment, instead of channelling funds into passive investments such as real estate and stocks. According to Statistics data, only 47% of small businesses even had employees in 2011; hopefully that number will rise.
The reforms are not an attack on family farms – These reforms do not affect the $1 million lifetime capital gains exemption that is in place to facilitate the transfer of family farms.
Nor do the reforms reduce the ability of owners to make investments in their business – Active investment in machinery, equipment and employees is not affected. The change would just mean the businesses could not be used by the wealthy to pay lower taxes on outside investments.
Business and their employees can access CPP and EI – A business owner can choose to take their income in dividends or as a salary that would be eligible for CPP and EI. They may choose to take dividends to avoid paying the employer and employee share of CPP and EI, but that is their choice.
These private corporation tax loopholes are not the way to help small businesses make the leap at start up – Most new and struggling small businesses would not have enough income to make effective use of these loopholes. The lower small business tax rate is already there for all small businesses to make the start up easier and compensate for differences related to size at a significant taxpayer subsidy.
There is a broad range of other targeted taxpayer funded programs to help new businesses get out of the gates. The government's business network grants and financing website lists 550 grants, contributions, financial assistance, loans and cash advances, loan guarantees, tax refunds and credits, and wage subsidies that businesses can access.
This is not a tax hike for small businesses – Small businesses continue to benefit from the lower small business tax rate, which will remain unchanged in these reforms. Canadian corporate tax rates are already amongst the lowest in the G7 while the small business rate is the lowest. One of the root causes of the abuse of the private corporation tax loophole is the big gap between the individual income tax rate, the corporate tax rate, and the small business tax rate. While some differential tax rates might be justified, this low small business rate may now be acting as a deterrent to growing businesses, resulting in fewer jobs being created.

The Reality: These Loopholes are Unfair

These tax loopholes are inherently unfair and bad for the economy – Research shows that these loopholes create rising numbers of economically inefficient businesses and worsen inequality in the distribution of income. Inequality is already dragging down economic growth and well being for all Canadians. These loopholes amount to potentially over $1 billion in lost revenues, money that is much needed for building the social and physical infrastructure that will keep our economy healthy.1 That money could be better spent funding universal childcare, allowing parents to participate fully as entrepreneurs, employees, producers and innovators.
We need broad universal programs to address concerns about insecurity – It is true that the self-employed don’t have pension plans, paid parental leave, mandatory vacation, and sick leave or disability benefits. However, increasing numbers of private sector workers are also denied access to these benefits as we see a shift in the public and private sectors to precarious work arrangements. This is reaching crisis levels, and will only get worse as the march of automation continues to eliminate and change jobs. Dividend sprinkling for a few is not the answer for lack of childcare and pensions for the many. We need a well-funded public pension program, we need universal access to quality childcare, we need substantial parental leaves for all workers and more. We need tax fairness, and we need tax revenues to pay for these programs.
These reforms may need tweaks but they should proceed – There are some valid concerns with the reforms being raised that may require some adjustments of the wording and implementation but it is important that the reforms proceed.
Does this package for closing private corporation tax loopholes go far enough?

While these tax reforms are an important step, they fall far short of levelling the playing field – These reforms need to be part of a broader package of reforms that addresses problems with the capital gains tax discount, the stock options loophole and the business entertainment tax break. The capital gains tax discount alone results in a loss of revenue of $10 billion. That package also needs to include concrete action to tackle tax havens.
1 The government does not yet have an estimate of the revenues anticipated from these changes but estimates range from $250m to $500m for the dividend sprinkling alone. There is an estimated $27 billion currently in passive investment in private corporations. So depending on how the changes to passive investments and capital gains are structured, there could be upwards of $1billion revenue in total.ww.taxfairness.ca/[/URL]
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,451
3,080
113
The Reality: These Loopholes are Unfair
The top 10% of our population pay 40% of all Canadian taxes

If the objective is to ensure a "Fair" tax system, then the completely disproportionate amount of tax paid by the top 10% has to be corrected

Oh wait
That would mean the whining bleeding heart left wing middle class would have to have their taxes increased by say 40%
So much for "fairness'
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,451
3,080
113
www.taxfairness.ca

http://www.taxfairness.ca/en/page/partners-and-supporters
• All Together Now - National Union of Public and General Employess (NUPGE)(link is external) - campaign for public services and fair taxation.
• Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives(link is external) - progressive think tank with excellent reports and research documents, coordinator of the Alternative Federal Budget initiative.
• Funding Democracy(link is external) - The Funding Democracy Initiative is rooted in the belief that sustainable government can only be achieved by rejecting the austerity agenda in favour of practical, progressive solutions. The supporters of Funding Democracy believe that the key lies in fairness; that all sectors of society must contribute to its sustainability; and that companies, governments, academics, labour and civil society must work together to reframe the narrative.
• Doctors for Fair Taxation(link is external) - advocates for increased government revenues, fairly collected, to protect public services and reduce government deficits and debt.
• Lawyers for Fair Taxation(link is external) - advocates for increased government revenues, fairly collected, to protect needed public services and reduce government deficits and debt.
• Progressive Economics Forum(link is external) - great source of info from progressive economists and tax experts.

Saddly this is just a left wing propaganda page with some pretty clear agendas
The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives is a union sponsored NDP driven joke
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,451
3,080
113
112,000 full time jobs were created in September, and this is an impressive 10th straight month of jobs addition to the economy. This is the longest streak of jobs addition since 2008. The hourly wage also rose 2.2 per cent. The jobs addition was mainly in the production sector, i.e. 10,500 jobs. Ontario gained 34,700 new jobs, an increase for four months in a row. BC, Manitoba and Ontario have the lowest unemployment rates in Canada. Keep up the good work Mr. Trudeau.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/cana...-month-with-boost-in-full-time-work-1.3621970
It is really good news
If you think this is a result of Justin's policies , you have a lot to learn
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
29,418
7,288
113
It is really good news
If you think this is a result of Justin's policies , you have a lot to learn
Your hatred for him has no ends. Off course you thought Stevie did a great job when he did not not realise that Canada was in recession at that time until the deficit had ballooned. It is you that has a lot more to learn.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
92,060
22,383
113
The top 10% of our population pay 40% of all Canadian taxes
'
The top 10% of our population by wealth also own 60% of all assets.
Sounds like they get a deal and aren't paying as much of a percentage as lower income people.

And as guelph noted, these are changes only for those making $150,000 or more.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
92,060
22,383
113
It is really good news
If you think this is a result of Justin's policies , you have a lot to learn
Here's another excellent example of how corporations work under free market terms.
In 2008 JPMorgan Chase committed massive fraud and was fined about $5 billion, now its been found that they are paying this fine through more of the same kinds of mortgage fraud.
But I'm sure their shareholders are all happy.
Special Investigation: How America’s Biggest Bank Paid Its Fine for the 2008 Mortgage Crisis—With Phony Mortgages!
Alleged fraud put JPMorgan Chase hundreds of millions of dollars ahead; ordinary homeowners, not so much.
https://www.thenation.com/article/h...he-2008-mortgage-crisis-with-phony-mortgages/

You can get your arse that the CEO's raked in millions at JPMorgan even as they screwed over their clients and the cities they lived in.
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
29,418
7,288
113
The top 10% of our population by wealth also own 60% of all assets.
Sounds like they get a deal and aren't paying as much of a percentage as lower income people.

And as guelph noted, these are changes only for those making $150,000 or more.
Maybe LaRue wants to pay the same percentage of taxes as the top 10%. Sure LaRue go ahead, and we will not stop you from doing so.

The taxes have to pay for infrastructure renewal, education, streets / highway upkeeps and additions, local facilities, police, army, air force, navy, security agencies, hospitals, doctors, nurses, specialists who earn above $500,000, people on welfare and disabilities, government agencies such as Health Canada etc., and so on. Wonder how this will be financed if we reduce the taxes of the top 10%, and stay with the loopholes, that are being exploited by more businessmen, over and above business expenses that are factored into tax credits.
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
29,418
7,288
113
I think this article can add some facts to the discussion.


https://www.thestar.com/business/2017/10/05/six-facts-you-need-to-know-about-ottawas-tax-reforms-olive.html


Six facts you need to know about Ottawa’s tax reforms
The debate over Ottawa’s tax reforms has been marred by a proliferation of falsehoods
akin to the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign. Here are the facts.

The proposed tax reforms of Minister of Finance Bill Morneau are aimed at the estimated $27 billion of surplus, or “passive,” funds accumulating in “professional medical corporations” and in incorporated small businesses.

By DAVID OLIVEBusiness Columnist
Fri., Oct. 6, 2017
Probably before the snow flies, the federal finance minister, Bill Morneau, will table a bill in Parliament that will take baby steps toward more fairness in our tax system.

The federal finance minister’s goal is to curb the use of incorporation as a tax-shelter device. The vast majority of people who incorporate are among the top 5 per cent of Canadian income earners. The current widespread misuse of this device is a means by which everyday taxpayers subsidize the wealthy.

For Ottawa, the nub of the issue is the estimated $27 billion of surplus, or “passive,” funds accumulating in “professional medical corporations” and in incorporated small businesses. Those passive funds benefit from the low small-business tax rate, but contribute nothing to the business. They serve to enrich the incorporated professional or entrepreneur at the expense of other taxpayers.

Ottawa proposes to raise the tax rate on those passive funds. It also seeks to restrict the practice of “income sprinkling,” by which small-business owners spread the company’s income among relatives with lower tax rates, who often aren’t involved in the business.

Ending those practices is essential, for obvious social-justice reasons. But more important is what this protracted debate tells us about the difficulty in achieving even minor reforms. The debate has been marred by a proliferation of falsehoods akin to the disastrous Brexit and 2016 U.S. presidential campaigns.

In its tax-reform initiative, Ottawa stands accused by vested interests of attacking the middle class, doctors, farm owners and small business.

Powerful special-interest groups say these modest tax changes will kill small-business job creation, prevent the transfer of family farms, and send over-taxed doctors fleeing to the U.S. Ottawa is also accused of springing these changes on those affected without warning.

Every one of those claims is a falsehood.


Fortunately, more Canadians among the quiet majority favour Ottawa’s bid for tax fairness than oppose it. Despite that, Morneau’s concession Wednesday that “changes are going to be required” to his reforms, without describing them, suggests Morneau is withering under the baseless criticism.

Fact: The proposed changes will affect – and only to a negligible degree – people making more than $150,000 a year. That’s not the middle class. Pretax income for the average Canadian worker is $49,510.


Fact: Justin Trudeau gave the affected parties a heads-up two years ago, when his party campaigned on – and won an electoral mandate for – precisely the tax reform introduced back in April. In 2015, Trudeau told the CBC, “A large percentage of small businesses are actually just ways for wealthier Canadians to save on their taxes, and we want to reward the people who are actually creating jobs.”

Fact: Only about 60 per cent of doctors choose to incorporate, meaning four in 10 docs will not be affected by the reforms. And all docs will still be able to write off their operating and capital costs. The only change for doctors who practise in a private corporation is a higher tax rate on the surplus, or “passive,” funds accumulating in their corporations. Those funds, often invested in stocks and real estate, are currently taxed at the low small-business rate though they contribute nothing to healthcare.

Fact: More than two-thirds of Canadian small-business owners earn less than $73,000, and will not be affected by the proposed tax reforms. And again, all small businesses can continue to write off legitimate business expenses.

Ottawa will continue to subsidize small business with the low small-business tax rate, which costs Canadian taxpayers $3.6 billion a year in forgone revenues.


Ottawa alone also provides about 550 assistance programs for small business, including grants, low-interest loans, tax refunds and credits, loan guarantees, and wage subsidies. Those are matched by assistance from municipalities and every province and territory. That is an inconvenient fact for the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB), the biggest small-biz lobby, which has come close to branding Morneau an anti-capitalist.

Fact: Farm owners, who lately have backed off their initial objections to Morneau’s reforms, will continue to benefit from the $1-million Lifetime Capital Gains Exemption for transferring ownership of family farms.

For the past decade, leading economies have been cracking down on the use of exotic offshore tax havens. But we’ve learned from this summer’s protracted tax controversy that we have thousands of tax havens here at home, tucked inside medical practices, auto-repair shops, plumbing firms and other small businesses.

Fact: By 2016, Canada could boast more than 84,000 doctors. We now have a record 230 docs per 100,000 people, billing the government about $339,000 a year on average, or a total of $25.7 billion. Family physicians bill about $275,000 per year, specialty surgeons earn about $461,000.

Morneau is also being roasted by the mighty Canadian Medical Association (CMA) and some of its provincial counterparts. It’s worth noting that the CMA, no friend of Canadian medical patients, also fought the advent of Medicare in 1962 in Saskatchewan, and then tried to thwart Medicare’s 1966 national rollout.

The silence of the Canadian public in letting vested interests dominate this debate has been countered by a few voices of common sense.

Almost 500 doctors and med students have signed a petition urging Ottawa to press on with tax fairness. “We need adequate tax revenues to fund social programs such as affordable housing, pharmacare, social assistance, legal aid, and the health-care system itself,” the petition states.

“These programs directly impact the health of our patients, and we believe it is important for us to contribute to their sustainability through an adequate tax base.”


And here’s Dennis Howlett, executive director of the five-year-old Canadians for Tax Fairness advocacy group, testifying last month on the reform issue to the federal House finance committee:

“It is not fair for business owners to be given extra subsidized retirement savings room (through passive investments) that their own staff and the average Canadian cannot access.”

And that’s not the most sobering point Howlett makes.

This summer’s skirmish over a minor change in tax law has sidelined issues of far greater concern. As Howlett puts it, “There are kids dying from bad water in Indigenous reserves while we debate whether or not the wealthy should get to keep unfair tax breaks.”

In a parliamentary democracy like Canada, special interests routinely hijack the public agenda, abetted by a credulous news media and a timid silent majority. We pay a heavy price for that.

It is said that bad things happen when good people do nothing. It’s also true that corrosive problems go unattended when good people are distracted by specious issues like this one.
Absolutely spot on, as La Rue only follows the right wing institutions that have the richest in their heart and minds.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,451
3,080
113
You really don't like seeing facts
I like facts
However when the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives is involved, one knows there is an agenda

Here is a fact for you
The top 10% of our population pay 40% of all Canadian taxes

If the objective is to ensure a "Fair" tax system, then the completely disproportionate amount of tax paid by the top 10% has to be corrected

This however will not sell politically, so please do not dare lecture me on "Fairness" or "Facts"
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,451
3,080
113
The top 10% of our population by wealth also own 60% of all assets.
Sounds like they get a deal and aren't paying as much of a percentage as lower income people.

And as guelph noted, these are changes only for those making $150,000 or more.
Too bad for those looking to steal via taxation that taxation is based upon income not assets

Stealing Assets will not help inequality or are going to rehouse the homeless to Lake Joseph ?

The more you complain the clearer this becomes. For you this is not about helping those at the low end, you want to punish and attack those at the high end out of spite
And that is just despicable

If you start foolishly drooling over the possibility of taxing assets , please consider the recession / depression you would cause.

That will result in a massive transfer of wealth out of the country, drive the stock market down and make foreign and domestic investment in Canada disappear
 
Toronto Escorts