Author Topic: Tax Loopholes Closing  (Read 761 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cybercoma

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2956
Re: Tax Loopholes Closing
« Reply #30 on: September 09, 2017, 10:02:15 pm »
s

It's the day your spending becomes discretionary, not compulsory. No one is saying you don't get any value from your taxes.
Then what's the point about complaining that it's "compulsory?"

Offline cybercoma

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2956
Re: Tax Loopholes Closing
« Reply #31 on: September 09, 2017, 10:10:01 pm »
SirJohn keeps saying the top earners pay 56% which is also wrong. Using ON, the top combined provincial-federal personal income tax rate is 53.35% only on income in excess of $220,000 per year. So if he made $270,000 last year, he would pay 54% tax on $50,000, not the full $270,000. But he knows this. The first $30,000 of his income is taxed exactly the same as the first $30,000 of anyone else's income.
Like Like x 1 View List

Offline cybercoma

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2956
Re: Tax Loopholes Closing
« Reply #32 on: September 09, 2017, 10:18:16 pm »
Maybe we could be a little more clear and refer to marginal or effective tax rates. The marginal tax on $250,000 is about 54%. The effective tax is less than 40% when you average the different brackets out and include the exemption.

Online wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9120
Re: Tax Loopholes Closing
« Reply #33 on: September 10, 2017, 12:02:47 am »
Then what's the point about complaining that it's "compulsory?"

Well let's give it all to government then. Who needs discretionary income.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline cybercoma

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2956
Re: Tax Loopholes Closing
« Reply #34 on: September 10, 2017, 06:54:40 am »
Well let's give it all to government then. Who needs discretionary income.
So dramatic.

Online wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9120
Re: Tax Loopholes Closing
« Reply #35 on: September 10, 2017, 09:14:17 am »
So dramatic.

Well don't say dumb things like we shouldn't pay any attention to it.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2017, 09:59:23 am by wilber »
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline cybercoma

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2956
Re: Tax Loopholes Closing
« Reply #36 on: September 10, 2017, 09:32:54 pm »
I didn't say we shouldn't pay any attention to it.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2017, 09:46:26 pm by JMT »

Offline SirJohn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: Tax Loopholes Closing
« Reply #37 on: September 10, 2017, 10:23:12 pm »
SirJohn keeps saying the top earners pay 56% which is also wrong. Using ON, the top combined provincial-federal personal income tax rate is 53.35% only on income in excess of $220,000 per year. So if he made $270,000 last year, he would pay 54% tax on $50,000, not the full $270,000. But he knows this. The first $30,000 of his income is taxed exactly the same as the first $30,000 of anyone else's income.

Would you care to show me the post where I said that top earners pay 56% in income tax? I'm pretty sure I specifically said 53.5. The figure you are quoting is total taxes from one of the Fraser reports of from this guy.

The averaged tax rate for someone making $250,000 per year is 40% (averaging the margins). If the argument is that there's then consumption tax of 15% on top of that you're still only at 55%
« Last Edit: September 10, 2017, 10:24:43 pm by SirJohn »
"When liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals won't do." David Frum

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Tax Loopholes Closing
« Reply #38 on: September 10, 2017, 10:32:27 pm »
Then what's the point about complaining that it's "compulsory?"

I certainly value the things our taxes provide, but my goals in life extend beyond the stuff the government can provide. I don't want a country without roads and healthcare and police and laws, but I want to have money to pursue the thing I want for myself.  That includes saving money so that I won't have to survive on cat-food and dumpster-diving when I'm too old to work, as well as a lot of more frivolous endeavors like enjoying the finer things in life.

So in regard to the mini slap-fight between you and wilber, I think it must be said that yes, we do need to build bridges. We paid however many billion for the Port Mann bridge, because the importance of that piece of infrastructure justifies the expense. But as wilber says...  in some number of decades when we need to build a new bridge, that'll be another X number of billions, and in addition to those billions we'll still be paying interest on the money we spent to build the last bridge.  If you or I ran our finances this way, we'd be living in a cardboard box.

 -k
Paris - London - New York - Kim City

Offline cybercoma

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2956
Re: Tax Loopholes Closing
« Reply #39 on: September 11, 2017, 08:41:54 am »
Would you care to show me the post where I said that top earners pay 56% in income tax? I'm pretty sure I specifically said 53.5. The figure you are quoting is total taxes from one of the Fraser reports of from this guy.

The averaged tax rate for someone making $250,000 per year is 40% (averaging the margins). If the argument is that there's then consumption tax of 15% on top of that you're still only at 55%
You don't pay consumption tax on ALL of the earnings. You only pay consumption tax on the goods and services you buy. Someone making $250,000 isn't spending their entire income on goods and services, unless they're insane.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline cybercoma

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2956
Re: Tax Loopholes Closing
« Reply #40 on: September 11, 2017, 08:43:01 am »
By is it not employers' responsibility to pay decent wage so people can do those things? Why are we blaming the government for the money it needs to operate effectively?

Offline SirJohn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: Tax Loopholes Closing
« Reply #41 on: September 11, 2017, 11:21:21 am »
By is it not employers' responsibility to pay decent wage so people can do those things?

Uhm, no. Employers have precisely ZERO responsibility to pay 'decent wages'. They need only pay the minimum needed to attract sufficient employees of the quality they desire.

Want better wages? Learn more skills and get a higher paying job. Nobody owes you a living, let alone a comfortable living.

Quote
Why are we blaming the government for the money it needs to operate effectively?

But government rarely operates effectively, let alone efficiently. We have a big, multi-year deficit not so government can operate effectively but so Trudeau could win an election.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2017, 11:23:27 am by SirJohn »
"When liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals won't do." David Frum

Offline cybercoma

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2956
Re: Tax Loopholes Closing
« Reply #42 on: September 11, 2017, 11:49:31 am »
Uhm, no. Employers have precisely ZERO responsibility to pay 'decent wages'. They need only pay the minimum needed to attract sufficient employees of the quality they desire.
This runs contrary to the thinking of early industrialists like Henry Ford, who recognized that his employees are his customers. If you think all that it takes to get a "better" job is more skills, then you know nothing about labour. The system has inherent unemployment, where people can't find jobs regardless of what skills they have or how much they're willing to work. Further still, your dramatically oversimplistic view of employment and wages ignores myriad factors that go into a person's mobility, whether they can move around the country or out of the country to work somewhere.

The problem with an elementary understanding of the market-effect on wages is that it ignores all of the problems with that theory. It pre-supposes that a person's wages are based on their productivity, but many jobs can't be measured that way. How do you measure the productivity of a judge, nurse, or a teacher? Second, markets are not perfect. The assumption you're making is that there is perfect competition for jobs. There is not. People form unions for some jobs but not others. Employers sometimes have a buyer's monopoly on purchasing labour (ie, there's only or very few employers buying your labour). Then at the heart of the issue is whether someone "deserves" their wage. Sure Lebron James makes the Cleveland Cavaliers tons of money, but does he deserve millions of dollars for playing basketball a few nights a week? Then there's culture. Lebron James makes a ton of money playing basketball in the United States, but how much money would he make playing basketball in Sweden?

You have a very simple view of how and why people make the wages that they do and I don't even have to bring up the sex and race gap in wages or the fact that married people make more than common law people all other things being equal. Job skills are one fraction of the total issue. You can have all the skills in the world, but if there's no opportunities you're not getting very far. And one of the biggest ways people foster opportunities is through connections. Everyone's heard of the saying, "it's not what you know, it's who you know." That phrase didn't become common because people with the best skills were getting the best jobs.

Offline SirJohn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: Tax Loopholes Closing
« Reply #43 on: September 11, 2017, 12:09:10 pm »
This runs contrary to the thinking of early industrialists like Henry Ford, who recognized that his employees are his customers.

But your employees are rarely your customers. And Ford was a bastard who cheated many of his partners and hated Jews. He didn't pay higher wages because of generosity but because his workers were skilled and he needed to slow the turnover.

Quote
If you think all that it takes to get a "better" job is more skills, then you know nothing about labour. The system has inherent unemployment, where people can't find jobs regardless of what skills they have or how much they're willing to work.

Getting good jobs is harder than getting bad jobs. That'll never change. But you do well in the bad jobs and progress upward if you keep trying and you're smart enough. Most of us have done it that way. You do shitty jobs to collect experience and build up a resume and you try to acquire skills along the way you can use to climb higher.

Quote
The problem with an elementary understanding of the market-effect on wages is that it ignores all of the problems with that theory. It pre-supposes that a person's wages are based on their productivity,

No. Wages aren't based on productivity, they're based on the scarcity of the skillset you are offering to your employer and the ease with which it and you can be replaced.

Quote
How do you measure the productivity of a judge, nurse, or a teacher?

Again, it doesn't matter. You offer up the job at a low wage. If that doesn't get you enough employees, you keep raising the wages until it does. Do you think if we cut the salaries of cops and firefighters in half we couldn't get lots of good applicants? We have way more teachers than we need and keep training more. Most of our public servants get paid far more than we need to attract  and retain quality employees. Slash their wages until we don't and that's how you figure out what the job is worth.

Quote
Second, markets are not perfect. The assumption you're making is that there is perfect competition for jobs. There is not. People form unions for some jobs but not others. Employers sometimes have a buyer's monopoly on purchasing labour (ie, there's only or very few employers buying your labour).

There are always imperfections in any system. Most of them in this are caused by government. I once applied for a job as a technical writer. I passed the test and was offered the job. I forget what it paid but my reaction was indignation. I told them where they could stuff their job offer. I later found out they weren't able to hire enough workers. But then, they hadn't wanted to. They were then able to tell the government they hadn't been able to get people and were allowed to bring in temporary workers.

Quote
Then at the heart of the issue is whether someone "deserves" their wage. Sure Lebron James makes the Cleveland Cavaliers tons of money, but does he deserve millions of dollars for playing basketball a few nights a week?

To quote William Munny "Deserve's got nothin to do with it." Trump doesn't deserve to have all the money he has either. and CEOs don't deserve what they're paid. But that's irrelevant.

Quote
Job skills are one fraction of the total issue. You can have all the skills in the world, but if there's no opportunities you're not getting very far.

By definition, the skills which command higher wages are in high demand, and thus there will invariably be an opportunity.

Quote
And one of the biggest ways people foster opportunities is through connections. Everyone's heard of the saying, "it's not what you know, it's who you know." That phrase didn't become common because people with the best skills were getting the best jobs.

That's only a part of the issue. Yes, connections help. The higher level the connections, the better your jobs can be. But you can rarely keep those jobs if you don't have the skillset required of them. And while connections help you don't NEED them. I didn't use connections to get where I am. I kept flailing away at things until I succeeded.

You're trying to make employers responsible for helping along those they hire to do work for them. That's not fair. It's not their responsibility. If I was to decide I could use someone to help me do something, and reckoned how much I could pay to get that person and still make a good profit, it's simply not on for someone to come along and say "No no you have to double his wages so he has a better lifestyle."
"When liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals won't do." David Frum

Online wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9120
Re: Tax Loopholes Closing
« Reply #44 on: September 11, 2017, 01:08:33 pm »
Quote
But your employees are rarely your customers. And Ford was a bastard who cheated many of his partners and hated Jews. He didn't pay higher wages because of generosity but because his workers were skilled and he needed to slow the turnover.

Labour relations Henry Ford style. http://www.autonews.com/article/20030602/SUB/306020843/the-rise-and-fall-of-harry-bennett

Ford was the last holdout of the big three and the only one who used violence against union organizers.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC