Previous  1 ... 3  4  5  6  7  Next

A thing that would help is a fair tax instead of a progressive tax. We are in the right time to change our taxation system. With that, we could try to have a much better system and bring some US professionals and corporations. I would suspect a decrease in revenue but that will just tell the government they have to cut spending to stop a deficit.

   

What sort of tax is a "fair" tax?

   

Instead of having multiple tax rates for different earnings (progressive tax) there's only one tax rate for everyone.

(Oops, i'm sorry I meant a FLAT tax. just mixed two terms...)

   

Any transition to a "flat" tax will either mean an cut to government revenue, or a hike on low-earners (or both). And to what benefit? So a few rich people get to be even richer? No thank you.

The only argument I've heard that makes any sense for a "flat" tax is tha is encourages the self-emloyed to leave money in their business rather than pay themselves once their personal income tax rate exceeds the corporate tax rate. But that's really just an argument for keeping personal tax rates lower than corporate tax rates (or vice-versa).

Besides, nobody even actually advocates for a truly "flat" tax, as there's always an exemption offered, so you're really just going from a five-bracket tax (0%, 15%, 22%, 26%, and 29%) to a two-bracket tax (0%, and some other percentage).

Even if one were on the cusp of going from the 22 to the 26% brackets, and the flat rate was set at 15%, that would equate to $226 per month less tax. That's 3.3% of your total income at that point. That's within the realm of negotiability with your employer. But you'd rather have the government just give it to you (and what does that sound like?) in the form of a tax cut. For those earning less, less of their icome is in teh 22% and so they benefit less, and for those earning more, they need that money less and less (as they're already making over $80000 per year at that point).

Flat tax is nothing but a tax cut for those that don't need it.

   

Actually, the countries who converted to flat tax made more tax revenue. So that would be a better thing if people still want all those government spendings.

   

What was the flat tax rate compared to the pre-conversion brackets? Was the increased tax revenue for income taxes alone, or was it for all tax revenue? Did it come with other tax changes?

I'd be very interested to see an example of a move to a flat tax that didn't hike taxes on anyone that wound up making more money for the government.

   

You have any facts and figures to back this up?


Oh, quit being such a drama queen.

   

Well, I don't know for all countries but most of the europeans having a flat tax, it is an income tax of like 20% or nothing. Things are really simplified and most of the higher tax revenue came from economic growth and a stop of tax evasion.

For Canada I would do something like a 20% after 20 000$. Something similar. And also no corporate tax, only on the incomes.

   

Ok, I'm going to jump back in here. Thanks to Derby for holding the fort. In fact I'll keep it short and leave it to Derby again.

First off, the Liberals cut the deficit every year since they were elected in 1993. They succeeded in balancing the budget in 1997, the first time in decades. Those who weren't adult, or at least politically active, at that time may forget how important that was. Since 1997 the Liberals brought in a surplus every year, and every cent of the surplus was applied to pay down the debt.

So, does inflation magically "shrink" the debt. Not in real dollars, but perhaps in inflation adjusted dollars. Do you really want a debt that never goes down? Do you really want to pay interest forever?

A "surplus" does not mean over taxation when you have a debt in excess of half a trillion. Is a payment to the mortgage of your house "over payment"?

Be careful when talking about budget figures, some politicians try to confuse you. The real debt is what they call "interest bearing debt". Budget documents talk about 3 different debts: interest bearing debt, net debt, and total debt. The interest bearing debt means what they have borrowed to pay for deficits. That's the loan to pay for years when the government spent more than they got. The "total debt" means the interest bearing debt plus an estimate of all the bills the government has yet to pay. For example, to compare the federal government to a family, "interest bearing debt" is the mortgage on your house. The "total debt" is that mortgage payment plus an estimate of how much you owe on the fraction of the monthly payment for utilities such as electricity, telephone, cable TV, internet, and even property tax. Most people don't count their monthly bills, or an estimate of today's portion of next month's utility bills, in their debt. That's what "total debt" means. So the term "total debt" is a scare tactic to confuse you. The term "net debt" is what most politicians today talk about. It is calculated by taking the interest bearing debt, then subtracting the current market value of all assets, including buildings and property that the government owns. Again to compare that to a family, that's like saying we owe $250, 000 for the mortgage of your house, but the market value is $150,000 so the "net debt" is only $100,000. If any individual said that he/she would be bankrupt. How can the debt exceed the total sum of their assets!? But that is exactly what the "net debt" means. Does this mean the "net debt" is the debt that taxpayers owe! No way! We owe the entire interest bearing debt. More importantly, we won't stop paying interest until we pay off the entire interest bearing debt. Kind'a obvious when you put it that way, isn't it?

   

Ok, time to repeat my plan. To put it simply, treat the federal debt like a mortgage. Pay the whole damn thing off. Once it's gone, abolish federal personal income tax. Yup, abolish so completely we won't ever again file a return.

There are many details to this, but that's the "sound bite". When I calculate the figures during the 2006 federal election, the result showed it would take 16 years to pay off the debt. That's 16 years if we starting with the first budget after the January 23, 2006, federal election. So the debt would be gone as of December 31, 21. There would have been no tax withholding from your paycheque starting January 1, 2022; and the tax return you filed in April of 2022 would have been the last tax return you ever file in your life!

Of course that required we freeze both the GST and corporate income tax at the level they were at that time. Doing it now would require raising the GST back to 7%, but that would happen by reducing personal income tax by 2% the exact same day the GST increase comes into effect. That is 2% up, 2% down. You pay income tax on all your income but only GST on some stuff, so that is an immediate tax saving. Once the debt is paid off, income tax will be completely gone! Doing all this today also means increasing corporate income tax back to the 2008 level. That means reversing the tax cut that took effect January 1 of this year, increasing it from 19% back to 20%. All this because Harper has spread his cuts all over the place instead of focussing cuts on just one tax.

Some small business owners I talked to point out that their accounting fees to keep track of the GST are higher than what they pay in GST itself. The paperwork is the problem, not the tax rate. Ok, so eliminating the overhead from filing returns means completely eliminating one tax. That can only be accomplished by focussing tax cuts on just one tax, declare war on that one tax, hack at it until it's gone. The alternative is to nickel-and-dime tax cuts, one percent here or one percent there, but nothing to reduce the paper burden or expense of filing returns.

During the 2006 federal election I did talk about abolishing the GST once the debt was gone; after all that was a Liberal election promise in 1993. Frankly that would be easy since interest payments are greater than revenue from GST. Once the debt is gone we could abolish the GST completely and still have a little money left over. Not a lot, but a little. But all Liberal voters in my riding said they would rather get rid of income tax. Economists also said that the economy would best be served by cutting income taxes and capital taxes, not by cutting consumption taxes. Ok, the voters convinced me, so income tax it is. So voters aren't angry that we didn't fulfill an election promise from over a decade prior, but would rather get rid of income tax. That is harder because revenue from federal personal income tax is greater than interest on the debt. To keep the budget balanced we will have to do a few more things.

I could detail the rest of the stuff, but this message is long enough. I'll keep it at that. I'll answer if anyone asks for the additional detail.

   

We pay about ~$30 billion a year in interest alone to service the debt.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/interactives/map ... wheregoes/



Are you an MP or something?

   

My plan was to help Reg Alcock during the 2004 election, so I could see how a winning campaign was run. Then help the local candidate during the following election to establish a relationship with the local riding association so I could win the nomination. That turned out to be 2006. I was office manager, IT coordinator, webmaster, and all-around main campaign worker. It turned out so well that I ended up being riding association president. My plan was to then be the candidate in the following election, which turned out to be 2008. I did say I would not contest the previous candidate's nomination, as long as she wanted it, but as soon as she decided not to run, I would. After the 2006 election she told me she would not run again, at least not in this riding. Ok, that left it open to me. I was the only candidate to submit nomination papers for my riding, I was riding association president with full support of the riding executive, and I was a delegate for Stéphane Dion during the 2006 leadership convention. I supported Stéphane Dion after the first leadership debate; supporting him when most Liberal members in Manitoba did not. Despite all of that, the party decided to disallow my nomination. The guy they found to replace me had been candidate many times and never won, and owned a medium size business, making him a millionaire. However, he never won a single election. Despite the fact the NDP incumbent did not seek nomination that election, the guy who replaced me got only 6.6% of the vote. That was the lowest percentage of the vote for any Liberal candidate in this riding in Canadian history. Yes, I did check election results, tracing through riding re-alignments back to confederation. In fact that was the first time a Liberal candidate here got less than 10% of the vote. A significant figure because the candidate does not get his deposit back, cannot declare election expenses, and the party does not get the $1.75 per vote. Do I think I could have done better? Oh, yea! Will I be candidate next election? We'll see. I think the guy who replaced me wants to run again. He'll never win, in fact last time he started his campaign by stating on CPAC that he expects to come third. He was hoping just to get above 10% of the vote so he could get his deposit back. I intend to win. But he's rich, I'm not. I'm just a working stiff with a lot of ideas.

But I could point out the previous NDP MP was an honest guy. Hard to unseat. His NDP replacement owns an insurance company and was a provincial MLA. He was the laziest do-nothing in the provincial legislature. It is well known that even the NDP premier didn't like him. He milks the system for the maximum money he can get, while spending his time running his insurance dealer business. He can be taken out. While my replacement last election lives in the next riding over, I grew up here and live here. I owned my house since 1990. Could I be an MP? I think so. We'll see. I guess you could say "or something".

   

Here's a nice FAQ about the flat tax:

http://www.adamsmith.org/think-piece/economy/the-practicalities-of-flat-tax-2005063042/

   

Slovakia, pre... personal up to 42%, corporate 52%,
GST 23 or 26%

after the introduction of the flat tax of 19%,


money turned over to the government more than doubled
after a couple of years.


The point you oh so consistently miss, Hurley.. the rich dont pay tax.
You only think they do.

   

when taxes go up it's the working middle class that pays, not the wealthy, and we all know who the politicians have for freinds.

   

Previous  1 ... 3  4  5  6  7  Next