|
A question for the socialists (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| rabbitjoker |
| quote: | Originally posted by NuERA
better than paying twice as much as what you expected. :)
|
HAHA! Good point. |
|
|
| Elendil |
| quote: | Originally posted by Superstring
Try not to think of it as penalized. Try thinking of it as helping. Helping other people get on their feet and earn more money. As more people earn money, you wealth (as a rich person) will increase as well, since they will be buying your products and services.
I should say I didn't mean to sound rude when I suggested you move to another country - just that this is the way that made sense to people that set up the current financial system. Other countries have set it up differently, and perhaps another tax model would suit you better.
So far the current model seems to be working, though I think that the loopholes for big businesses are finally starting to create deficits. |
You know what's wrong with statements like this? It implies that the government is there to operate as a charity - a charity using OUR money. Government's are NOT charities. When they operate as one, they are INCREDIBLY inefficient.
Dollar for dollar, your money is far better spent in a real charity or NGO. Why? Because they are accountable to the people who invest in them.
What are your options if the government doles out your hard earned tax dollars to a poorly thought out cause? Nothing. Bye bye money. You'll pay the same amount again next year, and it'll be the same deal.
What can you do if a charity makes a mistake with your donation money? Give it to another, better run charity the next time.
As far as I'm concerned, the government has no place using my money for charity. I'd MUCH prefer to give it away myself. I'm sick and tired of people acting like the government is entitled to this task, and that we couldn't just as reasonably do it ourselves. This whole "outsourcing of responsibility" bull is rediculous, and big government (which is exactly why we'll keep paying more and more taxes yearly) is more than happy to take advantage of such an ignorant viewpoint. |
|
|
| pmoisse |
I'm not sure what it is, but I just don't feel like the 19% VAT tax we pay on goods and services here is as high as it sounds.
Nor do I feel the same bite out of my pay after being taxed at something around 42%.
I feel like my money still goes further over here than Montreal or Toronto.
I think it's because I can see more quality investment in society here (public transit being a big one) and I just get a feeling I'm getting better value for my tax dollar. Social security is also quite a solid system here, but while there's abuse, it's not widespread. I also get a nice monthly tax rebate on the interest I pay on my mortgage, sent directly into my bank account.
Again, these are just my feelings without spreadsheets of numbers to back it up.
I just see so much more gov't wasting money when I read the papers from back home. Like one of the early posts said, bigger gov't needs more money to support bigger gov't. I too would feel a bit skeptical about the gov't wanting a bigger cut if I didn't see some tangible result or improvement out of it. |
|
|
| smuncky |
| quote: | Originally posted by pmoisse
I'm not sure what it is, but I just don't feel like the 19% VAT tax we pay on gods and services here is as high as it sounds.
|
that's a pretty high tax on gods. what if you believe in more than 1 god? that's highway robbery! |
|
|
| pmoisse |
| quote: | Originally posted by smuncky
that's a pretty high tax on gods. what if you believe in more than 1 god? that's highway robbery! |
Damn gods! I hate those guys!
(original post fixed, thanks lol) |
|
|
| MarkT |
^^^ I'm still harassing my dad for the necessary documentation so I can get my German Passport. maybe I'll join you over there, lol!
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
I'm not wrong that my average tax rate increases as I move into the next tax bracket. |
yeah. I think that's what confuses people. the rates that actually apply to the different tiers of income vs. the 'average rate' they will see deducted from each paycheque.
50k income vs. 60k income
50k income:
15% on first $38,832 = $5,824.80
22% on the remaining $11,168 = $2,456.96
total federal tax = $8,281.76
'average tax rate' = 16.56% (rounded)
60k income:
15% on first $38,832 = $5,824.80
22% on the remaining $21,168 = 4,656.96
total federal tax = $10,481.76
'average tax rate' = 17.47% (rounded)
(that's ignoring all applicable tax credits and deductions...and as RJ pointed out, it's just the federal tax. each province has it's own staggered provincial rates and tax credits too).
I hope those #s are right...long f'n week and I can barely focus on my computer screen right now, lol |
|
|
| Skipper |
| ^^ Yeah, I know for each bracket of income it's different. But at the end of the year, when someone who looks back at total dollars paid as a % of taxable income, the person who makes 200K sees a higher % than the 50K guy. I'm a-ok with higher $ value taxes paid but I think the rate should be flat. |
|
|
| Elendil |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
^^ Yeah, I know for each bracket of income it's different. But at the end of the year, when someone who looks back at total dollars paid as a % of taxable income, the person who makes 200K sees a higher % than the 50K guy. I'm a-ok with higher $ value taxes paid but I think the rate should be flat. |
Heh, I've been a huge fan of flat tax for ages; number one reason? Cuts the heck out of the numbers of employees crunching numbers in the CRA.
It just makes so much more sense it's almost painful. But then again, so do a lot of other solutions to our bloated, fix-it-by-spending government issues. Honestly, it's just painful. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
IMO, the best system would be one with higher consumption taxes and no income tax.
Raise the PST and GST each to 15% (on par with Europe I think) but eliminate the income tax entirely.
That way, you aren't penalizing the people who make a lot of money and invest it and therefore help to create more jobs; only the people who "live large", buy a lot of overpriced luxury products and don't contribute [as much] toward economic growth.
And eliminate corporate taxes and corporate welfare; it would probably be a wash at the end of the day.
That's my little utopia of course; it'll never actually happen. It's funny, because I would expect that kind of a system to make the socialists happy; the system is intrinsically kinder to The Poor because The Poor don't buy as much. |
|
|
| Spam |
| quote: | Originally posted by Superstring
Try not to think of it as penalized. Try thinking of it as helping. |
How is more of my money being sent into the black-hole that is Government-spending 'helping' anybody?
No, seriously, I want to hear this. All those people you think you're helping with our tax dollars? What we're REALLY doing is enabling their poor, slothful lifestyles. Why should people learn to be responsible for themselves when the Government will take the rich people's money and give it to them just because they're too lazy work and blame (insert anything that isn't 'themselves' here).
Another thing. The more money we send the Government, the higher pay-hikes unions demand because they know the Gov has more money. How does already overpaid people getting more money help other people get on their feet?
| quote: | | Helping other people get on their feet and earn more money. As more people earn money, you wealth (as a rich person) will increase as well, since they will be buying your products and services. |
See above please. Our tax dollars do NOT go to help other people get on their feet. The only people I know who are on welfare waste that money on cigarettes and bingo. They do NOT put it towards 'getting on their feet', they simply waste it on harmful products to keep themselves entertained while they blame rich people for all their problems.
| quote: | | So far the current model seems to be working, though I think that the loopholes for big businesses are finally starting to create deficits. |
The current model 'works' in so far as we have large, rich corporations and people in Canada to tax. As taxes go up, more businesses move out of the country and set up shop in countries with lower taxes.
The ONLY benefit I could see with a 'progressive' tax system is if it was debilitating enough that large monopolistic corporations couldn't exist, so business was more spread-out and diversified. It's better for 10 people to make 100k each per year than for ONE person to make a million.
Government needs to reign in spending, encourage personal responsibility, and implement a FAIR tax system. The government should defend our country, enact a fair justice system, keep our infrastructure in good repair, provide basic education and health-care, then get the of our wallets and make us fend for ourselves. It shouldn't be the Government's job to fund the lifestyle of every poor bastard who takes no responsibility for their own life.
I'm not even rich (in fact, I'm in the lowest bracket), and 'progressive' taxes piss me off. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
It's not necessarily even a question of whether or not the recipients of welfare are spending it wisely. I agree that's a part of it, but it's a weak point to bring up because it's hard to verify except in an anecdotal sense.
The problem with taxation as a means of social aid is that it's indirect. When you're working with sums in the billions of dollars, you need people to collect, organize, manage and distribute those funds. You need an application and approval process and ongoing monitoring. You need thousands of people to run a program like this. These people all cost money.
Even if you wanted to help people "get back on their feet", most of the money you put in isn't actually going to those people, it's going to the bureaucracy that administers it. It's going to jobs that could be eliminated entirely if people made direct donations to various charitable and non-profit organizations (which many people still do). And it's going to real estate, technology, and other capital that these workers need in order to run the program. And because all of the revenue is essentially borrowed, it gets effectively treated as an unlimited budget and there is no penalty for being overstaffed or otherwise inefficient.
It's like the age-old argument against the record companies whereby people are against paying $20 when only $1 of that goes to the artist. It's the same with welfare. Government-run Robin Hood programs are without a doubt the most inefficient means of distribution imaginable, easily passing through a hundred different people, systems, and bureaucratic layers before ever reaching the person it's designed to help.
Now, when you consider that the system isn't perfect and some people will waste the money - not all, or even most, but some - it seems even more egregious. The $20,000 or whatever they're getting may not seem like much, but it's actually costing the taxpayers more like $100,000.
And even this level of inefficiency is based on the assumption that internally the bureaucracy works perfectly, which it doesn't. Not necessarily because it's corrupt (although it often is), but because people are human, and when billions of dollars are flowing in and out of the organization every year, it just doesn't make sense to ask what happened to $1 million here or $2 million there; it's a drop in the bucket.
And even then we're still assuming that all of the distributions are destined for meaningful, productive social programs. Sure, universal health care is a noble (albeit misguided) cause, but what about the gun registry? What about the war on drugs? What about corporate subsidies for auto manufacturers? Would any of us voluntarily contribute to these, even if we had unlimited funds?
It's not a question of whether or not it's a just cause. It doesn't matter whether or not the people we think we're "helping" actually need help. Even assuming that they do, the system is unsustainable. The cost of running it is horrifically disproportionate to the benefit it would produce in a perfect world. We'd be much better off if (and I'm not actually suggesting we do this) the government just told us we had to pick a few charities and donate x% of our income to them. At least there would be legitimate competition and the "help" would be direct.
You folks know what really helps people get back on their feet? The best form of social insurance you could possibly have?
It's called a job.
Anyone want to take a guess at where those come from? |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
It's called a job.
Anyone want to take a guess at where those come from? |
me! me! me! me! i wanna guess...
Is it all those evil rich people who we need to tax to death because they are apparently no benefit to society? |
|
|
|
|
