Originally posted by StereoPrincess
if you got a family you have a lot more write offs. same with owning a home means more write offs. makes it a little better at least. also write off anything that is needed for your job.
You're going to get audited.
exstasie
So i'm the only the one here that doesn't think its fair that just because someone makes more money that they should be financially penalized more then someone who doesn't?
DigiNut
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.
So let's summarize your argument as follows:
People should only earn enough to account for their immediate needs. Any "surplus" should be redistributed toward those with lower incomes.
High income earners spend the majority of their discretionary income on luxury items.
It is "retarded" not to believe that making Billy Bob pay $3000 in taxes and Betty Sue pay $30,000 is actually unfair to Billy Bob.
Just wanted to put that out there, to make sure we're clear. Is that a reasonably accurate summary of your position?
Here's a summary of mine, which hopefully will sound less feverishly irrational to most:
People work harder in order to earn more money so that they and their families can live more comfortable lifestyles. A system that penalizes this strategy discourages career ambition and hard work - at any income level.
The largest consumers of luxury items, aside from the super-rich (billionaires), are actually the middle class - people with high debt and low net worth. This is a fact. The majority of "wealthy" classes live quite frugally and excel at saving and investing money.
Investment is a Good Thing. It drives businesses and creates new opportunities (jobs), including higher-income jobs.
The most effective way to discourage luxury spending while maintaining/increasing government revenue is to tax the luxury items; not the original income that may or may not be used to purchase them. (Consumption taxes across Canada make almost the same revenue as income taxes and are much lower).
DigiNut
quote:
Originally posted by StereoPrincess
the reason they are poor is because their parents are poor and their parents parents were poor and so on and so on.
Your explanation does not jibe with reality. Families born into wealth often lose that wealth after a few generations. Most wealthier families started out relatively poor.
And it makes sense when you really stop to think about it. Parents who spoil their children with money do not impart a good understanding of how to manage money. Their children spend, spend, spend themselves into oblivion. Children from poorer families - assuming they're not given a free ride by the government - learn very quickly how important it is to save more and spend less. They care less about lifestyle and don't desire the luxury items as much. They're happy to drive a '92 Civic hatchback instead of an '09 Jetta. They are able to accumulate more on a $50,000 income than many middle-class individuals can on a $100,000 income.
Arguments relating to education are, for the most part, a red herring. Education correlates with wealth only at the lowest income levels. At higher ($250K+) income levels there is little to no correlation between education and income or net worth. Most of these people are entrepreneurs or just have a unique talent. This can happen with equal likelihood in rich families or poor families.
Irish, Italian, and Jewish families all lived in ghettoes in Toronto as early as 50-100 years ago. Now these families are almost all middle-class and even have their own little ethnic subdivisions. This does not paint a picture of the poor getting poorer or even staying poor.
DigiNut
quote:
Originally posted by mute79
this is taking into account that they could afford non-subsidized housing with tax breaks alone (which they can't)
Subsidized housing and land use restrictions are precisely the reason why housing prices are so high. If you actually look at the statistics, you'll find that inflated housing prices not only correlate very closely with so-called "affordable housing", but that the inflation has always occurred after the subsidization. California, New York, Toronto, Vancouver; it's always the same story.
Affordable housing imposes price controls on land developers and forces them to build unprofitably. They recover those losses by raising prices on the private sector. Eventually this starts to displace the lower-income population, and indeed, there was even a recent study published about Toronto and posted here, in the usual populist context, about how central/downtown Toronto is getting "richer" and the rest of the GTA as well as some of the slum neighbourhoods are getting "poorer". I recall explaining back then that this made sense when looked at as a migration as opposed to a class gap.
Add rent controls and high immigration into the mix and you have a complete housing disaster. We are actually making the problem worse by trying to help.
feelgood
quote:
Originally posted by DigiNut
Your explanation does not jibe with reality. Families born into wealth often lose that wealth after a few generations. Most wealthier families started out relatively poor.
And it makes sense when you really stop to think about it. Parents who spoil their children with money do not impart a good understanding of how to manage money. Their children spend, spend, spend themselves into oblivion. Children from poorer families - assuming they're not given a free ride by the government - learn very quickly how important it is to save more and spend less. They care less about lifestyle and don't desire the luxury items as much. They're happy to drive a '92 Civic hatchback instead of an '09 Jetta. They are able to accumulate more on a $50,000 income than many middle-class individuals can on a $100,000 income.
Arguments relating to education are, for the most part, a red herring. Education correlates with wealth only at the lowest income levels. At higher ($250K+) income levels there is little to no correlation between education and income or net worth. Most of these people are entrepreneurs or just have a unique talent. This can happen with equal likelihood in rich families or poor families.
Irish, Italian, and Jewish families all lived in ghettoes in Toronto as early as 50-100 years ago. Now these families are almost all middle-class and even have their own little ethnic subdivisions. This does not paint a picture of the poor getting poorer or even staying poor.
Very Well Put.
feelgood
Let me also add this... For those who perceive 'rich people' as being greedy while there is so much financial disparity.
One of my favorite economic experts of all time.
malek
quote:
Originally posted by DigiNut
Your explanation does not jibe with reality. Families born into wealth often lose that wealth after a few generations. Most wealthier families started out relatively poor.
And it makes sense when you really stop to think about it. Parents who spoil their children with money do not impart a good understanding of how to manage money. Their children spend, spend, spend themselves into oblivion. Children from poorer families - assuming they're not given a free ride by the government - learn very quickly how important it is to save more and spend less. They care less about lifestyle and don't desire the luxury items as much. They're happy to drive a '92 Civic hatchback instead of an '09 Jetta. They are able to accumulate more on a $50,000 income than many middle-class individuals can on a $100,000 income.
Arguments relating to education are, for the most part, a red herring. Education correlates with wealth only at the lowest income levels. At higher ($250K+) income levels there is little to no correlation between education and income or net worth. Most of these people are entrepreneurs or just have a unique talent. This can happen with equal likelihood in rich families or poor families.
Irish, Italian, and Jewish families all lived in ghettoes in Toronto as early as 50-100 years ago. Now these families are almost all middle-class and even have their own little ethnic subdivisions. This does not paint a picture of the poor getting poorer or even staying poor.
I applaud you for having the patience to rebute her clichéd arguments. There's simply no excuse of perpetuating the poverty cycle in Canada, especially with our almost-free education system and low low crime levels... And no one said anything about having to go to University Marge, people make a very good living with trades, 6 months training and you become an electrician, after a couple of years they easily make much more than your run of the mill grad-level professional.
I love that "not easy to do homework when there are gunshots outside your window", way to go applying south central clichés anywhere in canada.
StereoPrincess
quote:
Originally posted by DigiNut
Your explanation does not jibe with reality. Families born into wealth often lose that wealth after a few generations. Most wealthier families started out relatively poor.
And it makes sense when you really stop to think about it. Parents who spoil their children with money do not impart a good understanding of how to manage money. Their children spend, spend, spend themselves into oblivion. Children from poorer families - assuming they're not given a free ride by the government - learn very quickly how important it is to save more and spend less. They care less about lifestyle and don't desire the luxury items as much. They're happy to drive a '92 Civic hatchback instead of an '09 Jetta. They are able to accumulate more on a $50,000 income than many middle-class individuals can on a $100,000 income.
Arguments relating to education are, for the most part, a red herring. Education correlates with wealth only at the lowest income levels. At higher ($250K+) income levels there is little to no correlation between education and income or net worth. Most of these people are entrepreneurs or just have a unique talent. This can happen with equal likelihood in rich families or poor families.
Irish, Italian, and Jewish families all lived in ghettoes in Toronto as early as 50-100 years ago. Now these families are almost all middle-class and even have their own little ethnic subdivisions. This does not paint a picture of the poor getting poorer or even staying poor.
Aaron, we aren't talking about the people that make 50 000 grand and are poor. That's not being poor. Being poor is making 20 000 a year and there is no easy way to get out of that.
Are you really comparing the families that arrived here when there was unlimited jobs and everything was developing to the poor families now that can't even get a job at McDonalds? It's different times now, different landscape all over the world. If the immigration happened now those families would be ed since no one would hire them since they don't speak english. Back then Italians hired Italians and Jews hired Jews. Now the opportunity just isn't there.
StereoPrincess
quote:
Originally posted by malek
I applaud you for having the patience to rebute her clichéd arguments. There's simply no excuse of perpetuating the poverty cycle in Canada, especially with our almost-free education system and low low crime levels... And no one said anything about having to go to University Marge, people make a very good living with trades, 6 months training and you become an electrician, after a couple of years they easily make much more than your run of the mill grad-level professional.
Those schools still cost money you know. It's not like you just get the idea to go and bada bing bada boom you are in school. Writing all the licenses costs money too. You guys really are missing the point. If you make 50 000 you are not poor. That's a good salary for the average Canadian.
quote:
I love that "not easy to do homework when there are gunshots outside your window", way to go applying south central clichés anywhere in canada.
lol, i was exaggerating a bit about that but in toronto there are 12 year olds that carry guns. so i am not sure how much of a stretch that is. i read the police reports everyday and at least 4 or 5 a day are gun possession charges.
ChemEnhanced
quote:
Originally posted by StereoPrincess
Aaron, we aren't talking about the people that make 50 000 grand and are poor. That's not being poor. Being poor is making 20 000 a year and there is no easy way to get out of that.
Are you really comparing the families that arrived here when there was unlimited jobs and everything was developing to the poor families now that can't even get a job at McDonalds? It's different times now, different landscape all over the world. If the immigration happened now those families would be ed since no one would hire them since they don't speak english. Back then Italians hired Italians and Jews hired Jews. Now the opportunity just isn't there.
those opportunities are still there....maybe for different people but they are definately still there.
StereoPrincess
quote:
Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
those opportunities are still there....maybe for different people but they are definately still there.
