Flat taxes anyone???

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.

Yes parties should not be a deduction , but some of them do charity work , they employ the un employable .

grumpyrom wrote: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.

LOL. just bugging you with the union tax.

But I am serious about a flat tax. Right now I am sick and tired of paying over 50% of my gross income in taxes.

I've done the math; If all i had to do was pay 15% flat tax, I could afford to buy medical insurance for my family and get better care in the USA. I would have way more disposable income that I could use to make my self a better consumer. I would love to be able to buy private car insurance, with my clean driving record I'd be paying less than I am now. Let the speeders and bad drivers pay high premiums.

How do you know you would pay less then now insurance . We get a pretty deal here if you have a clean record . I compared against Ont and it was less here .

Sure..you would be better off. So would I with a flat tax of 15%, 20% or even 30%. The flat taxe rates I've seen floated around work out most likely to approx. 30%, not 15%.

But what about the millions of seniors that currently pay very little or no tax, you feel fine increasing their tax bill by $1,500 or more a year? What effect does that have on their ability to buy the necessities of life? Food, medicine, housing?

The argument that flat tax would make high income earners better consumers is negated by the fact that it makes a much larger percentage of the population much worse consumers. That's basically what was in the second half of my last point.

There's only so many more things you or I can purchase LD with whatever tax cut we would see, but for everyone of "us" seeing a tax cut there would be 20 or 30 seeing an increase and curtailing their spending.

Increasing income tax by a few thousand a year for people earning <$30,000 annualy would have a much larger negative impact on consumer spending than would be negated by increasing spending power by $10,000 or more annualy for the relativley small percentage that would see those reductions.

Net effect would be disastrous for the economy, and for millions of children and seniors. No thanks.

Oh, and just for arguments sake...take a look at the effects implementing a flat tax has had on many of the former Soviet bloc countries. It has completely destroyed what little middle class they had. Massive stratification in income. My own birth country was doing relatively well for the first decade after communism fell, a growing middle class and an economy that was starting to take off. A decade after flat tax, and that middle class is completely gone and the countries economy is in shambles relying on IMF loans to pay the bills.

But yet during all this economic turmoil thousand's of new millionaires were created? Is that what we're aiming for in Canada?

Now that this thread has been derailed... Doesn't Alberta have a flat tax?

grumpyrom wrote:Sure..you would be better off. So would I with a flat tax of 15%, 20% or even 30%. The flat taxe rates I've seen floated around work out most likely to approx. 30%, not 15%.

But what about the millions of seniors that currently pay very little or no tax, you feel fine increasing their tax bill by $1,500 or more a year? What effect does that have on their ability to buy the necessities of life? Food, medicine, housing?

The flaw in your position assumes there is no room for flexibility.

Why don't we take these creative minds in here and develop a taxation system, flat or otherwise, and develop a much more fair rate of taxation?

Why not something like this:

0 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 10% 20% 30% 20% 10% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0

Or whatever (for those that think too linearly)...

NO tax breaks for anything. Ever. Period.

Or whatever (for those that think too linearly)...

That makes a heck of a lot more sense, assuming the no tax breaks part sticks. That's the hard part to sell to those with the most to lose imho. Also, why would the tax rate return to zero at the top end of the scale? You'd lose far more revenue from that than you would gain by have the bottom 10% of income earners or so paying 1%-10%.

Why not max it out at 30% and leave it there, with no tax breaks. The top tiers would still see a reduction in their marginal rate of at least 15%. At least then they would be paying their true tax rate, rather than a hyper inflated number that they never pay anyways thanks to all the tax breaks available.

The reduction part after 30% was for seniors. Just "thinking" out loud.Maybe the 0-30% works best for everyone...

Taxation by age? lol that would be a new approach. I assumed your scale was dropping by income after a certain point back to 0%.

Even with the change you propose (a scale from 0 to 30%) you'd still have people at the top bracket whining they pay too much. It's the price you pay for to have a society that looks after all it's citizen's not just those that can afford to look after themselves.

I always find it amusing that the countries with the highest levels of taxation (Scandinavia, Canada. Australia, Switzerland, Austria for eg.) also consistently come out tops on every single standard of living index I've seen. There must be something more than low taxes for quality of life.

I like the idea of a progressive flatish~ tax, but one where no one gets a "tax break" except those that truly need it the most.

grumpy old man wrote:Now that this thread has been derailed... Doesn't Alberta have a flat tax?

Yes. Alberta income tax is 10% across the board.

Would be nice for Manitoba and certainly make it a bit more attractive for the wealthy. However the current administration likes taxing the rich and sees those that make over $60,000/year as their golden goose.

Flat tax is obviously a commie idea. If everyone is supposed to have the same tax rate, it would also make sense for everyone to have the same income. Reduce the income of all high wage earners to average, and increase the income of low wage earners to average. Then the flat tax is a fair tax.

eVil tRoli you said:

Flat tax is obviously a commie idea. If everyone is supposed to have the same tax rate, it would also make sense for everyone to have the same income. Reduce the income of all high wage earners to average, and increase the income of low wage earners to average. Then the flat tax is a fair tax.

Yeah but didn't they already try that in Red China and over there the rich are still getting richer?...GGF

The best solution, IMHO, is to have Libertarian governments.

Government would be cut back in size, taxes would decline and we would have more money in our pockets to spend as we see fit. Consumer spending would go up, businesses would be booming and hiring.

I like this scenario.

That's the scariest scenerio in my eyes....one step away from anarchy.

Any frustrated accountant will tell you that our Federal tax laws (to a lesser degree - provincial) are incredibly complex and cumbersome beyond reasonable. It is a 1,600 page cinder-block that accountants have to interpret from year to changing year. Of course we need a flat tax. Businesses should not require to hire a full time accountant to satisfy the government. Our regional Canada Revenue buildings should be the size of a school - not gigantic complexes and being the largest employer in the region. It is outrageous the amount of mail/communication we get from them.

A flat progressive tax as suggested by GOM I'd agree with, a completely flat tax would be a disaster. The simplest change to make that would both increase revenue and simplify things is to simply remove all but the most basic tax credits and exemptions. That would solve most of the frustrations Jondo mentions.

Flat tax starting at income over the LICO.

Why not a flat tax that starts at zero and progress's upwards to say 85%?

<$50,000 a year = 0%
$50,000 to $100,000 = 15%
$100,000 to $250,000 = 30%
$250,000 to $1,000,000 = 45%
$1,000,000 to $10,000,000 = 60%
>$10,000,000 = 85%

How would this be better or worse than our current system?

Damn good idea, so the more I work, the harder I work, the more personal capital I put into whatever it is that I do, I get to give more to the government so that they can squander and spend on uselss things.


So, exactly, what is my incentive to do more?

Where's the dissincentive? Everything up to $1,000,000 annually would be taxed at or below current levels. How much money do you really need as incentive to go out and "do more" as you state?

Assuming that everyone under $250,000 would have drastically more spending more, and assuming that the free market you love works as it should, then those earning over $10,000,000 annually would also see a drastic increase in their earnings to match the drastic increase in their taxes.

Someone earning $10,000,000 annually would still net $4,210,000 under my hair brained scheme. That's not enough incentive for you to get out of bed?

So, someone else should decide how much I should earn? I guess we hit the fundamental issue, didn't we?