Negative Income Tax
Knoss @ Thu May 17, 2007 10:17 pm
Negative income tax involves a flat tax with deductions for home payments, food, children's clothing, medical care, etc. Rather then having a minimum income of $0.00 taxpayers can have a negative income if deductible expenses exceed income meaning they have a negative income tax debt and are paid their income tax credit. This would replace our current social programs which is a collection of rag tag programs each with its own bureaucracy.
Knoss @ Fri May 18, 2007 7:48 pm
Everyone would receive a $600 poverty deduction, which would ensure anyone without income gets a tax credit.
BartSimpson @ Fri May 18, 2007 8:05 pm
Thousands of bureaucrats would be out of jobs if you did this - that's why it'll never happen. 
Knoss @ Sat May 19, 2007 5:09 am
lol
Blue_Nose @ Sat May 19, 2007 6:00 am
I agree that it'd be great if the system were to be weaned off social programs.
All those bureaucrats could get jobs as private not-for-profits pop up to take the government's place.
dog77_1999 @ Wed May 30, 2007 12:31 am
Knoss Knoss:
Negative income tax involves a flat tax with deductions for home payments, food, children's clothing, medical care, etc. Rather then having a minimum income of $0.00 taxpayers can have a negative income if deductible expenses exceed income meaning they have a negative income tax debt and are paid their income tax credit. This would replace our current social programs which is a collection of rag tag programs each with its own bureaucracy.
Makes too much sense. The government will kill you now for bringing enlightenment.
Knoss @ Wed May 30, 2007 3:45 pm
Cute, but it has been implemented in Slovakia which has seen the largest ecconomic growth in Europe outside of fermer Soviet nations.
Kenazo @ Wed May 30, 2007 11:12 pm
Would you still have a progressive tax rate though?
dog77_1999 @ Thu May 31, 2007 12:32 am
Kenazo Kenazo:
Would you still have a progressive tax rate though?
The progressive tax system would most likely stay. This replaces all of those indivual checks from every single kind of organization.
fire_i @ Thu May 31, 2007 4:21 am
Interesting idea, Knoss. A bit unpredictable but interesting nonetheless.
Knoss @ Thu May 31, 2007 5:43 am
$1:
Would you still have a progressive tax rate though?
Flat personal tax and the elimination of corporate tax would be better. If corporations didn’t pay income tax but he shareholders did as they would not have a capital gains exemption then there would be better representation of personal income. It would also make tax collection simpler for the average family, allowing children to file income tax in order to receive NIT.
Clogeroo @ Thu May 31, 2007 8:59 am
Not a bad idea Knoss and it would be worth looking into. Maybe you should contact your MP, MLA, or even your provincial or the federal finance minister?
jafo2k @ Mon Jun 04, 2007 8:51 am
Flat personal tax is the way to go. But it has been spoken of before. I don't like they'd listen.
Kenazo @ Tue Jun 05, 2007 8:38 pm
Knoss Knoss:
$1:
Would you still have a progressive tax rate though?
Flat personal tax and the elimination of corporate tax would be better. If corporations didn’t pay income tax but he shareholders did as they would not have a capital gains exemption then there would be better representation of personal income. It would also make tax collection simpler for the average family, allowing children to file income tax in order to receive NIT.
Why would corp's pay out anything more than a living wage to their shareholders then? Or would your thought be that a corp would be more like a limited liability partnership where the income in the corp would actually be the s/h's income?
Knoss @ Wed Jun 06, 2007 5:24 am
$1:
Why would corp's pay out anything more than a living wage to their shareholders then? Or would your thought be that a corp would be more like a limited liability partnership where the income in the corp would actually be the s/h's income?
Yes the corperations income would be the shareholders.