|
A question for the socialists (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| malek |
| quote: | Originally posted by English Rachel
I am in the highest tax bracket and I am not a crook!! Weirdo... |
oh your penis is longer than mine? I'm sorry.
have you even thought about how those low income people got there in the first place? Obviously not. It's their right to skip school and/or having kids at 16 and/or doing drugs. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Why is it the my taxes keep going up, our debt keeps getting bigger, our services keep getting more expensive but there is still as much poverty as ever?
How is bigger government beneficial to anyone other than big government?
Discuss |
I think you should readdress this to the CPC and Alberta PC parties, as the present Federal government is the largest in Canadian history, and the present Alberta government is the larges per capita in North America. |
|
|
| Skipper |
| quote: | Originally posted by mute79
that's a great way to beat poverty.. tax the single mother working 2 jobs to death
while at it, buldoze over low income housing and build luxury condos! |
but if you tax the luxury condos and give a tax break to low income housing residents, then problem solved.
I'm all for consumption taxes. It might help to solve some of the over consumption problems we have in this world. |
|
|
| SniFFleS |
Progressive tax systems are really just a disincentive to earn more.
I know a lot of people in sales who would try and earn a lot more if they weren't taxed as much at the highest marginal rate.
If the highest marginal tax rate wasn't so high and they earned to there potential they would probably pay more in tax because there earnings would increase.
Therefore paying more tax at a lower rate better for everyone!
The government is not an efficient user of capital. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
I'm all for consumption taxes. |
Indeed, they are the fairest form of taxation. It's a pity that our feds decided to cancel income tax reductions in order to reduce the GST instead... I would have expected better economic policy from an economist.
Personally, I have no problem with the present level of taxation... I do have some problems with how that revenue is allocated though. |
|
|
| English Rachel |
| quote: | Originally posted by malek
oh your penis is longer than mine? I'm sorry.
|
WHAT? Holy you are even more of a freak than I ever thought.... Is English your second or fifth language?
You ACCUSED me of thinking that higher earners are crooks, see here;
| quote: | | Originally posted by malek thats because the person who has all these belongings is automatically a crook and should not have all the money he worked hard to earn? Come on now... |
So I was just saying that I am not a crook so how could I think that.
| quote: | | have you even thought about how those low income people got there in the first place? Obviously not. It's their right to skip school and/or having kids at 16 and/or doing drugs. |
Are you serious that you think that's the case? That EVERYONE has the same ability to earn copious amounts of cash? Nothing to do with natural abilities or spending time caring for sick people or not having opportunities to go to university etc. etc.??? Goddamn it, even our NURSES aren't paid enough to support a family ($50k). People that would care for your sorry ass should you get sick.
Or are you jsut pressing my buttons because you know I think you're a prick on here anyway? Hmmm yes, that makes more sense. |
|
|
| mute79 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
but if you tax the luxury condos and give a tax break to low income housing residents, then problem solved. |
its pretty absurd to assume that you can collect enough taxes from luxury condos for 3.5m living below poverty line.. this is taking into account that they could afford non-subsidized housing with tax breaks alone (which they can't) |
|
|
| Elendil |
Fact is, with a flat tax, everyone has more money to dump into our economy, which means that more jobs will be higher paying, thereby meaning less lower income families all around. You seem to be equating tax money with direct personal benefit - however, as is INCREDIBLY apparent, money going to the government is basically money going into a giant financial black-hole. Your extra money is FAR better off going to charity than the government.
It's simpler and more prudent in so many ways. |
|
|
| Skipper |
| quote: | Originally posted by mute79
its pretty absurd to assume that you can collect enough taxes from luxury condos for 3.5m living below poverty line.. this is taking into account that they could afford non-subsidized housing with tax breaks alone (which they can't) |
I'm half joking, but I don't really see your response as very convincing anyways. |
|
|
| English Rachel |
| quote: | Originally posted by Elendil
Fact is, with a flat tax, everyone has more money to dump into our economy, which means that more jobs will be higher paying, thereby meaning less lower income families all around. You seem to be equating tax money with direct personal benefit - however, as is INCREDIBLY apparent, money going to the government is basically money going into a giant financial black-hole. Your extra money is FAR better off going to charity than the government.
It's simpler and more prudent in so many ways. |
But the rich people DON'T give more to charity. Refer to Ted Rogers thread....
If people were naturally caring about others, we wouldn't need any of the programs we have - people would help out their neighbour. That is a very idealistic and unrealistic view but one that I, personally, would love. |
|
|
| StereoPrincess |
| quote: | Originally posted by English Rachel
FLAT TAX? Are you all retarded????
SO you think that someone earning 30k should pay the same percentage as someone earning 300k??
Look at it this way, money to feed and clothe you/your family is a relatively fixed amount SO the base rates are staggered to take this into account. When you hit the HIGHEST bracket, that's there because that money is SURPLUS to your requirements.
Staggered tax is the best. And this is from a girl who paid over 34k in tax last year.
When you need maternity pay or EI or enhanced medical care, perhaps you will be less inclined to moan about this. |
exactly.
i thought i was a retard thinking that a flat tax would be wrong.
a person making 12 000 a year has to stretch their money way farther than a person making 300 000 thousand. that's why it's staggered.
trust me, i have lived on the poverty line for 10 years now. student life is a great way to learn how to budget. |
|
|
| StereoPrincess |
| quote: | Originally posted by Elendil
| quote: | Originally posted by English Rachel
Pfft so you think that a parent who may not be able to afford to feed their family should fork out the same percentage of their earnings than someone who has a house, a cottage and 2 cars? Come on now... |
Yes, I do. You pay a percentage of your earnings to live in a country; you shouldn't pay more or less based on the size of those earnings.
10 percent of 30,000, versus 15% of 300,000 - the rich end up paying far more taxes. If that leaves some services short, well guess what? Cut back government salaries and government spending to keep it in line with the requirements of a society. Encourage charity spending. But I have to say, I'm more for getting rid of income tax and taxing consumption at a much higher rate. Consumption, after all, is what drives our economies. |
10% of 30 000 = 3000 leaves you with 27 000
15% of 300 000 = 45000 leaves you with 255 000
so who is better off. you really are going to complain? |
|
|
|
|
