Flat taxes anyone???

The rich have been getting richer because/despite of economic slowdown. The tax rates for high incomes (100k+, 500k+) should be increased (e.g. 50%, 70%).

you know what we should cut?

All funding of political parties.
All tax breaks for contributing to political parties or people.
All tax breaks for elected officials income.

Deank wrote:you know what we should cut?

All funding of political parties.
All tax breaks for contributing to political parties or people.
All tax breaks for elected officials income.

but...but...if we did that...how would we ever be able to have elections!!!

people contribute and dont expect to be paid back because they think the candidate is worthy.
Candidates use their own money.

Tax the following items that are not being taxed:
prostitution
drugs
drugs
drugs:

Everything that bikers are doing- The big benefit would be that the costs would go down, for drugs, and taxes paid to the government would increase substantially.

Huge benefit(Billipns of $$$) in lower costs for less police, cost of incarcerated people, crime costs , lawyers, Judges, less penitentiary costs- 68% of incarcerated men are in on drug related non-sense.

nah.. just be converted to different expenses... trials for smuggling, trials for providing prositution and not being properly certified.

eViL tRoLl wrote:The rich have been getting richer because/despite of economic slowdown. The tax rates for high incomes (100k+, 500k+) should be increased (e.g. 50%, 70%).

You figure because they earn more they should pay a higher percentage? Why?

You think that if they pay the same percentage as you and I that they are not pulling their weight?

I have to say I've never understood that philosophy.

If you earn $50k annually and pay 20% tax you're kicking in $10k annually.

If I earn $100k annually and pay 20% tax I'm kicking in $20k annually.

DOUBLE what you pay. And you say I'm still not contributing enough?

Welcome to socialist Manitoba. No wonder we are a have not province. We can't take our hands out of other people's pockets long enough to earn for ourselves what we need and want.

grumpy old man wrote:

eViL tRoLl wrote:The rich have been getting richer because/despite of economic slowdown. The tax rates for high incomes (100k+, 500k+) should be increased (e.g. 50%, 70%).

You figure because they earn more they should pay a higher percentage? Why?

You think that if they pay the same percentage as you and I that they are not pulling their weight?

I have to say I've never understood that philosophy.

If you earn $50k annually and pay 20% tax you're kicking in $10k annually.

If I earn $100k annually and pay 20% tax I'm kicking in $20k annually.

DOUBLE what you pay. And you say I'm still not contributing enough?

Welcome to socialist Manitoba. No wonder we are a have not province. We can't take our hands out of other people's pockets long enough to earn for ourselves what we need and want.

You mean like how Manitoba is a "receiver" from the Canadian equalization fund?

That's always the right-wing point of view so it doesn't surprise me one bit you bring it up GOM.

On the other hand, our current system is built on ability to pay....not equality. I'll pose a different set of questions, which is better for the economy as a whole and for our society?

Is it better to introduce a flat tax system like you propose which lowers the top tier by a 10% but increase all other tiers by 10 to 25% to make up for the shortfall? Let's say a fair flat tax would be an equal rate of 35% for all (it would probably have to be at least that much to make up for loss of tax income from the higher tiers).

You would now have a system where people currently making under $15,000 or so who currently pay $0 would now pay $5,250 annually.

Those earning $50,000 would pay $17,500 annually.

Those earning $250,000 who are taxed near 50% currently (but rarely pay that much) would currently owe around $120,000 and would see a drop to $87,500 owing.

So you tell me, what most beneficial and "fair" under this scenerio for most people? Your going to take thousands more from those who can least afford it and who are already in poverty, take thousands more in disposable income from most of the middle class, and reduce taxes by tens of thousands a year for those who need a tax break the least?

Moving to a flat tax system you would instantly kill the economy as you removed thousands of dollars in disposable income from the majority of the population at the benefit of 5 to 10%.

The smartest thing to do at this point in time with growing wage disparity would be to introduce a 3-5% surcharge for ultra-high income earners making over $250,000k annually. This would add billions to the federal coffers while impacting virtually no ones standard of living, except for relativley few high income earners who may have to put off buying that next Range Rover for a few extra weeks.

Not sure how your read I proposed any tax reform in my post. Creative mind you have there...

I merely posed a question. You wish to talk about tax reform and specifically a flat tax? Great. Let's start a new thread.

Outsider wrote:You mean like how Manitoba is a "receiver" from the Canadian equalization fund?

Exactly.

grumpy old man wrote:
You figure because they earn more they should pay a higher percentage? Why?

You think that if they pay the same percentage as you and I that they are not pulling their weight?

I have to say I've never understood that philosophy.

If you earn $50k annually and pay 20% tax you're kicking in $10k annually.

If I earn $100k annually and pay 20% tax I'm kicking in $20k annually.

DOUBLE what you pay. And you say I'm still not contributing enough?

Sorry GOM, but your post sounds exactly like an argument for a flat tax. Sorry if I misread what your saying. I was merely making the opposite argument for why I feel it is completely fair under your above example that the person earning 100k pays double what the person making 50k does.

The argument that people should pay an equal percentage just doesn't hold water with me, nor would it work in practise.

Now the thread is what userfees and taxes would you like to see go up? I think I addressed that as well, even if I was a bit long winded getting to it. Specifically I think we should be looking at high income tax surcharges, and things like luxury taxes (eg. vehicles over $75,000), and gaz guzzler taxes (<30mpg hwy or <25mpg combined).

These types of increases would yield the biggest increase in revenues with the smallest economic and social impact. Most people shopping for $100,000 autos aren't going to rethink their purchase because there is an additional 3-5% tax.

Bravo on the end of tax breaks for the political parties.

And why not look at the churches which seem to have enough funds to build some very nice buildings but are not there when a pensioner needs help to get groceries

Or how about all of those people who tie up emergency wards when they could go to a walk in in the morning . Pay the total cost of said visit. Bet the service on weekends would improve .

Pavolo wrote:And why not look at the churches which seem to have enough funds to build some very nice buildings but are not there when a pensioner needs help to get groceries

Thats a very naive comment. Churches do a lot of philanthropic work themselves as well as support other charitable causes, either through direct support and volunteers.

And that's all well and fine Mr Knowledgeable but have you checked out the the bank accounts of these churches . And if a retired old pensioner has to pay school tax why should not the church pay some what property tax.

Got a problem with churches now, Pav?

But leave that to another thread.

No I don,t just if you look at all the revenue sources lets put them all on the table . There are lots of things that do not pay, or have their debt forgiven .

Churches are registered charities and annually file a T3010, which includes financial information which is available on line. How much more "on the table" do you want?

I don't think you'd even have to consider taxing church's and charities if you just removed the political party contribution tax credit. That would bring in a huge amount of new revenue. I never understood why you get a much larger tax credit for donating to the NDP, Liberals, or Conservative's than you do for donating to a charity that will actually do some good in the community.

grumpyrom wrote:I don't think you'd even have to consider taxing church's and charities if you just removed the political party contribution tax credit. That would bring in a huge amount of new revenue. I never understood why you get a much larger tax credit for donating to the NDP, Liberals, or Conservative's than you do for donating to a charity that will actually do some good in the community.

Hey grumpyrom, I agree with you!

Heh heh take a look out your window. See any pigs flying? heh heh

Heh heh...every now and then we agree on something don't we lol.

I don't donate nearly enough to charity (in my own mind), but my parents donate a fairly large portion of their income every year to a couple different causes that are very important to them (including their church). It boggles my mind every year when I do their income tax that they could have over $1000 more in tax credits if they just donated that money to a political party instead. WTF?

I'd like to see a Tax on being in a union. If a person is a union member and is employed by a level of government, they should be taxed at double the rate.

I'd also like a flat tax for income. Make it fair for everyone. That way welfare bums can feel like they are contributing too.

The sad part is I actually think your serious LD.

Please let's start a new thread where you can explain to me how society would be better off with a flat tax rate that would benefit only the smallest percentage of our population while driving millions more into poverty? Try and think about the math for just a second.