The truth about income, taxes and who pays what
OnTheIce @ Mon Jan 28, 2013 12:33 pm
It is a truly bizarre story over at Occupy Wall St or sorry, make that The Globe and Mail. The scribes at Canada’s business paper tell you half the story about income distribution in Canada.
Canada’s top 1 per cent of earners now represent 10.6 per cent of the country’s income, according to the latest measure.
That’s down from 12.1 per cent from a peak in 2006 but well up from the 7 per cent of the early 1980s, Statistics Canada reported Monday.
The paper goes on to describe how incomes for the 1% have risen since the 1980s. Back in 1982 you needed to make $147,500 to be among the most elite of tax filers, in 2010 you needed to earn $201,400 to make the cut.
What Occupy Front Street doesn’t tell you is that the amount of taxes paid by the top 1% has also gone up. All through the Occupy protests in Canada and even now with Common Causes, the rebranded Occupy movement, we have heard that the wealthy don’t pay their fair share.
What do the hard facts say?
According to Stats Canada, back in 1982, the golden days of Trudeau, Broadbent and social justice, the top 1% paid 13.4% of all taxes collected compared to 21.2% in 2010. Before the economic downturn the top 1% paid 23.3% of all taxes collected in 2007.
Here’s a bit more from Stats Canada.
The share of income taxes paid by the rest of all tax filers fell from 86.6% in 1982 to 78.8% in 2010.
The median federal and provincial income tax paid by the top 1% of filers was $60,900 in 1982. By 2010, this median had increased 48% to $90,100. By contrast, the median for the rest of tax filers fell from $2,800 in 1982 to $1,800 by 2010.
So much for fair share.
While the top 1% of income earners have seen their pay go up taxes have gone up even faster and that’s even with the income tax cuts of the Chretien and Harper governments.
http://blogs.canoe.ca/lilleyspad/genera ... es-occupy/
andyt @ Mon Jan 28, 2013 12:49 pm
Your analysis only looks at percentage of total income taxes paid. It's great that the rich pay more of this percentage - they should.
But:
$1:
Until 2008, personal income taxes were the primary source of tax revenues, comprising more than 30% of such revenues in the mid-1980s; their significance has been declining since the 1990s, coincident with a rise in the proportion of social security contributions.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/Resea ... i-21-e.htmThe rich don't pay social security on their high incomes, and the overall percentage of of federal revenue from income tax is way down. Ie the rich may pay a higher percentage of income taxes, but they pay less tax. And meanwhile the average working slop pays much more in social security. And user fees, and GST, etc etc. All of those are regressive taxes.
But great to see that you are concerned about income inequality, even if you choose to look thru the wrong end of the telescope.
Public_Domain @ Mon Jan 28, 2013 1:37 pm
andyt @ Mon Jan 28, 2013 2:18 pm
Public_Domain Public_Domain:
The rich have such tough times buying food, finding shelter, and affording education...
Hey, they have the same right to sleep under a bridge as anybody else.
BeaverFever @ Mon Jan 28, 2013 2:28 pm
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
It is a truly bizarre story over at Occupy Wall St or sorry, make that The Globe and Mail. The scribes at Canada’s business paper tell you half the story about income distribution in Canada.
Canada’s top 1 per cent of earners now represent 10.6 per cent of the country’s income, according to the latest measure.
That’s down from 12.1 per cent from a peak in 2006 but well up from the 7 per cent of the early 1980s, Statistics Canada reported Monday.
The paper goes on to describe how incomes for the 1% have risen since the 1980s. Back in 1982 you needed to make $147,500 to be among the most elite of tax filers, in 2010 you needed to earn $201,400 to make the cut.
What Occupy Front Street doesn’t tell you is that the amount of taxes paid by the top 1% has also gone up. All through the Occupy protests in Canada and even now with Common Causes, the rebranded Occupy movement, we have heard that the wealthy don’t pay their fair share.
What do the hard facts say?
According to Stats Canada, back in 1982, the golden days of Trudeau, Broadbent and social justice, the top 1% paid 13.4% of all taxes collected compared to 21.2% in 2010. Before the economic downturn the top 1% paid 23.3% of all taxes collected in 2007.
Here’s a bit more from Stats Canada.
The share of income taxes paid by the rest of all tax filers fell from 86.6% in 1982 to 78.8% in 2010.
The median federal and provincial income tax paid by the top 1% of filers was $60,900 in 1982. By 2010, this median had increased 48% to $90,100. By contrast, the median for the rest of tax filers fell from $2,800 in 1982 to $1,800 by 2010.
So much for fair share.
While the top 1% of income earners have seen their pay go up taxes have gone up even faster and that’s even with the income tax cuts of the Chretien and Harper governments.
http://blogs.canoe.ca/lilleyspad/genera ... es-occupy/
Canada’s top 1 per cent of earners now represent 10.6 per cent of the country’s income, according to the latest measure.
That’s down from 12.1 per cent from a peak in 2006 but well up from the 7 per cent of the early 1980s, Statistics Canada reported Monday.
The paper goes on to describe how incomes for the 1% have risen since the 1980s. Back in 1982 you needed to make $147,500 to be among the most elite of tax filers, in 2010 you needed to earn $201,400 to make the cut.
What Occupy Front Street doesn’t tell you is that the amount of taxes paid by the top 1% has also gone up. All through the Occupy protests in Canada and even now with Common Causes, the rebranded Occupy movement, we have heard that the wealthy don’t pay their fair share.
What do the hard facts say?
According to Stats Canada, back in 1982, the golden days of Trudeau, Broadbent and social justice, the top 1% paid 13.4% of all taxes collected compared to 21.2% in 2010. Before the economic downturn the top 1% paid 23.3% of all taxes collected in 2007.
Here’s a bit more from Stats Canada.
The share of income taxes paid by the rest of all tax filers fell from 86.6% in 1982 to 78.8% in 2010.
The median federal and provincial income tax paid by the top 1% of filers was $60,900 in 1982. By 2010, this median had increased 48% to $90,100. By contrast, the median for the rest of tax filers fell from $2,800 in 1982 to $1,800 by 2010.
So much for fair share.
While the top 1% of income earners have seen their pay go up taxes have gone up even faster and that’s even with the income tax cuts of the Chretien and Harper governments.
http://blogs.canoe.ca/lilleyspad/genera ... es-occupy/
Either your blogger is a simpleton or he's churning out propaganda.
The wealthy have not seen their "taxes go up". The tax rate has fallen for the 1%. A greater proprotion of total tax revenue comes from them because they are now so much wealthier than before, which is different from saying the 1% have a higher tax burden than they did in the past. It stands to reason that those who significantly increase their proprotional share of the nation's taxable income will generate a greater proportion of tax revenue, even if their tax rate is reduced.
The blog tries to "prove" that the 1% are have a higher tax burden today than in the past. This whole thing can be easily disproven just by looking at the historical tax rates. It's not a theory, tax rates are published figures. But let's continue, shall we? The blog points out that the "median" tax dollars paid by 1% went up by 48%, but the blog doesn't tell you how much the "median" income of the 1% changed so what is it proving? Nothing.
Just to hit the message home, imagine a world where you and I are the only 2 taxpayers, earning the same money and paying the same tax. Let's say we both earn $100k a year and both pay a 30% tax. Of total tax revenue collected, I 50% came from me and 50% came from you. The next year, I manage to take advantage of our mini-economy while it's a bad year for you; now I earn $190k a year and you only earn $10k. Ff the tax rate were cut to 10%, I'm paying $19k in taxes while you're only paying $1k. I'm now paying 95% of the taxes, even though my tax rate has fallen significantly and I'm keeping more of my money than I was before. According to this blog, however, I'm a persecuted victim paying a higher tax burden which is total bull.
andyt @ Mon Jan 28, 2013 2:33 pm
Well, it just wouldn't be fair that you only pay 1k in taxes. I mean you have all of 9k left to live on. Whats wrong with you? Give up your cell phone and TV and heating your home etc. The rich have suffered enough, time for the poor to give back.
OnTheIce @ Mon Jan 28, 2013 2:44 pm
andyt andyt:
But great to see that you are concerned about income inequality, even if you choose to look thru the wrong end of the telescope.
Don't confuse my post with concern. There's definitely no concern from my end.
Just goes to show you can make the numbers look good or bad, depending on how you look at them.
BeaverFever @ Mon Jan 28, 2013 2:49 pm
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
Just goes to show you can make the numbers look good or bad, depending on how you look at distort them.
BartSimpson @ Mon Jan 28, 2013 3:07 pm
This would all be so much easier if everyone paid the same tax rates and without any clever deductions.
Those qualifying for assistance would still get it, but of their earned income they'd pay the same tax rate as everyone else.
Much simpler tax forms, too:
(Income)(x%) = tax due.
BeaverFever @ Mon Jan 28, 2013 3:11 pm
There's no way you could generate enough revenue to run a country by taxing everyone at the same %, without literally taxing people into the poorhouse.
BartSimpson @ Mon Jan 28, 2013 3:17 pm
BeaverFever BeaverFever:
There's no way you could generate enough revenue to run a country by taxing everyone at the same %, without literally taxing people into the poorhouse.
Yet countries ran that way for centuries before 'progressive' taxation came along as a means of punishing productivity.
OnTheIce @ Mon Jan 28, 2013 3:28 pm
BeaverFever BeaverFever:
There's no way you could generate enough revenue to run a country by taxing everyone at the same %, without literally taxing people into the poorhouse.
We're not generating enough money now. So......
martin14 @ Mon Jan 28, 2013 3:29 pm
BeaverFever BeaverFever:
There's no way you could generate enough revenue to run a country by taxing everyone at the same %, without literally taxing people into the poorhouse.
You missed the elimination of deductions,
and you can raise the basic deduction to help the lower levels.
BartSimpson @ Mon Jan 28, 2013 3:35 pm
martin14 martin14:
BeaverFever BeaverFever:
There's no way you could generate enough revenue to run a country by taxing everyone at the same %, without literally taxing people into the poorhouse.
You missed the elimination of deductions,
and you can raise the basic deduction to help the lower levels.
Me, I'd go with no deductions. And then let low-income people apply for assistance in the certain knowledge that not all low-income folks will apply for it or need it.
CanadianJeff @ Mon Jan 28, 2013 3:37 pm
Maybe you should go read the history books so you can compare the treatment of people in those countries.
This blog is total bull and beaver hit the nail on the head. The reason the total amount paid by the rich is higher now is because they have more wealth then ever before.
Their tax rates have fallen and no amount of number crunching will change that fact.
I may not agree with much of what the occupy movement does but when they have their facts down they have their facts down.