Toronto Girlfriends

Canadians want a wealth tax and are willing to vote for it

oil&gas

Well-known member
Apr 16, 2002
13,736
2,168
113
Ghawar
Not sure why you think it is a binary choice.
What choice of leadership other than Trudeau or O'Toole could grab
enough money from our pockets needed to pay off our debt and resolve the
climate issue?
 
Last edited:

toguy5252

Well-known member
Jun 22, 2009
15,964
6,108
113
At least Trudeau doesn't have to be if he is not going to
need the money for all the climate promises like zero
emission and planting the two billion tress for real.

You keep conflating wanting to deal with climate change and being a Stalinist. they have nothing to do with one another.
 

oil&gas

Well-known member
Apr 16, 2002
13,736
2,168
113
Ghawar
Can you explain how else our government can get
its hand into our pocketbooks? The issue to be dealt with
doesn't have to be climate change but the money needed
is going to be as big as our total national debt. And I am
not saying our government has to turn to communism.
It is just in theory the way our government can get sufficient
money from us by hook or by crook.
 
Last edited:

Anbarandy

Bitter House****
Apr 27, 2006
11,063
3,622
113
Re read my post, especially the part where it says we do not offer "other incentives ".
But of course!

It's everyone else and their sister doing the inbred, corruption fandago, except you and your pure as the driven snow outfit.

How in the world does your delicate and dainty company even survive in a world full of thieving bandits?
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,596
3,181
113
People on the right always drag out a bogeyman.

Wealth tax = Stalin
Actually the issue is a little different than that

  1. Wealth tax = stealing. How you manage to delude yourself to think you can make a claim on other peoples property is perplexing
  2. Wealth tax = loss of incentive to take risk, innovate, increase productivity >>>> no wealth creation You will kill the golden goose
  3. We do not have a govt revenue problem , we have a govt spending problem

1628479133847.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dutch Oven

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,596
3,181
113
Not sure why you think it is a binary choice.
Well if you want to control emissions in the name of "FIGHTING" Climate Change" , you will need to
  1. Destroy the economy
  2. Impose a lower standard of living on everyone ( Well maybe not the Davos crowd)
  3. Control the populations behavior to obtain absolute and complete compliance
  4. Not give a rats ass how many people are hurt or killed
And thus the binary choice is communism
It is a natural for those criteria

You keep conflating wanting to deal with climate change and being a Stalinist. they have nothing to do with one another.
Actually communism is likely the only way to reduce emissions, (see above)
a pretty heavy price to pay for any objective
Compounded by the fact it will not impact our constantly changing climate
The idea than man can "fight" and defeat mother nature is absurd
 
Last edited:

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,596
3,181
113
Bang on.

Same with LaRue and his marginal tax rates for corporations of 26.5%, which of course hardly any corp. ever actually pays. Their net rate is actually 15% and which of course many escape from paying too.

Explain what marginal tax rate means?
Then explain why marginal tax rate are quoted so often and have to be used on an ex-anti basis ?

It is not my fault if you do not know / understand or are too stunned to look it up
 

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,670
6,839
113
But of course!

It's everyone else and their sister doing the inbred, corruption fandago, except you and your pure as the driven snow outfit.

How in the world does your delicate and dainty company even survive in a world full of thieving bandits?
Do you read the posts or just listen to the voices in your head?
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,596
3,181
113
You should be tired of paying 53% of your income in taxes.

The highest MARGINAL tax rate if you live in Ontario is 46%.

For the first $100,000 of income, you pay 22% in taxes.
you seem oblivious to the consumption taxes , property tax as well as the fees and licenses he is paying
And the if you employee people that is a whole other tax burden to carry
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,596
3,181
113
This thread is about how to tax wealthy individuals, not about how to tax small business owners.
You do not get to unilaterally define the boundaries of the discussion

Besides most small business owners strive to be a wealthy individual
That is generally why they take on the financial and operation risks and work 80 + hours a week


And now there is risk that some lunatic government will decide being successful and wealthy is now a sin requiring punishment.
Or some lunatic government will decide it wont manage its finances responsibly (promises wins votes!) and instead tax target those that do manage their finances responsibly
 
Last edited:

Anbarandy

Bitter House****
Apr 27, 2006
11,063
3,622
113
Do you read the posts or just listen to the voices in your head?
Of course I read your posts faithfully 'jcpro'.

They're quite entertaining and imaginative, beguiling to the point of fantastical, albeit in a slap dash and haphazard sort of way.
 
Last edited:

toguy5252

Well-known member
Jun 22, 2009
15,964
6,108
113
Can you explain how else our government can get
its hand into our pocketbooks? The issue to be dealt with
doesn't have to be climate change but the money needed
is going to be as big as our total national debt. And I am
not saying our government has to turn to communism.
It is just in theory the way our government can get sufficient
money from us by hook or by crook.
That would be true whether the marginal rate was 1% or 99% or anywhere in between. If you simply object to taxation then that is your prerogative but silly. It is a question of balancing what government must or should do and how to pay for it. the only way that a government has to raise money is through taxation. rates and government objectives and policies are another thing.

But on another level your criticism and that which is usually made by anti-taxers fails to recognize that economies anr dynamic. The better question is what is the cost of not doing anything about climate change or infrastructure or whatever.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
92,839
22,906
113
Actually the issue is a little different than that

  1. Wealth tax = stealing. How you manage to delude yourself to think you can make a claim on other peoples property is perplexing
  2. Wealth tax = loss of incentive to take risk, innovate, increase productivity >>>> no wealth creation You will kill the golden goose
  3. We do not have a govt revenue problem , we have a govt spending problem
Uh huh.

 

Darts

Well-known member
Jan 15, 2017
23,023
11,256
113
If the idiotic left were to institute a wealth tax and they might because they are idiots, do you or I get a refund if our wealth declines in future years?

Old lefty proverb: Once we kill all the rich, there will be no poor people.
 

toguy5252

Well-known member
Jun 22, 2009
15,964
6,108
113
If the idiotic left were to institute a wealth tax and they might because they are idiots, do you or I get a refund if our wealth declines in future years?

Old lefty proverb: Once we kill all the rich, there will be no poor people.
As you would see from my previous posts on this thread i am not a fan of a wealth tax.

Having said that I am not familiar with the proverb you have quoted. But I am familiar with the saying "let them eat cake."
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,596
3,181
113
That would be true whether the marginal rate was 1% or 99% or anywhere in between. If you simply object to taxation then that is your prerogative but silly. It is a question of balancing what government must or should do and how to pay for it. the only way that a government has to raise money is through taxation. rates and government objectives and policies are another thing.
What a steaming pile of crap
the only way that a government has to raise money is through taxation
Bullshit, they can cut wasteful spending and reduce the bloated size of government

rates and government objectives and policies are another thing.
even discussing a proposed policy without evaluating and understanding the costs and the ability to pay for is bad procedure
actually implementing a policy without knowing where the money will come from is about as irresponsible as it gets

But on another level your criticism and that which is usually made by anti-taxers fails to recognize that economies are dynamic.
And yet the loonies try to justify their irresponsible borrowing based on current interest rates and Debt to GDP ratio
Despite their explicit policies designed to shut down resource extraction which will lower GDP and government revenue
And despite the fact interest rates have but one way to go

How odd that you accuse anyone of recognizing that economies are dynamic.
As you do not seem to understand the dynamics can and will take a turn for the worst, especially with policies designed to shut down specific industries

The better question is what is the cost of not doing anything about climate change or infrastructure or whatever.
And a more superior question is "WTF makes you think man can successfully "Fight" climate change and mother nature ?
An additional superior question why tax Canadians on energy they require to survive and live their lives when it will nave absolutely aero impact on atmospheric Co2?

Governments work for the people of Canada
Their role is not to make life more difficult for Canadians
 
Last edited:
Toronto Escorts