NDP tax hike for the wealthiest in NS (Proposed)

Fur · #1 05-09-2017, 08:10 PM

NDP proposes tax hike for the wealthiest to help address poverty in Nova Scotia.

Move would affect 3,700 highest income earners in the province and would generate about $20M a year

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-s...erty-1.4106399

Why do others feel that those that work hard should pay for others/slackers?

I really do not get it. Most of those people they want to tax have made major sacrifices and done some amazing work to get to their incomes. I just cannot understand why people feel they can give away other peoples hard earned money?

Help me understand cause this drives me nuts. Am I missing something?

hal53 · #2 05-09-2017, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fur

NDP proposes tax hike for the wealthiest to help address poverty in Nova Scotia.

Move would affect 3,700 highest income earners in the province and would generate about $20M a year

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-s...erty-1.4106399

Why do others feel that those that work hard should pay for others/slackers?

I really do not get it. Most of those people they want to tax have made major sacrifices and done some amazing work to get to their incomes. I just cannot understand why people feel they can give away other peoples hard earned money?

Help me understand cause this drives me nuts. Am I missing something?

Typical NDP, they can't stand business success. I wonder what the governments excuse will be when the majority of those targeted with this crap move out of the province?

Selkirk · #3 05-09-2017, 08:19 PM

That's standard NDP fair ... nothing new there.

For an explanation as to 'why', call your local NDP MLA.

.

Fur · #4 05-09-2017, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Selkirk

That's standard NDP fair ... nothing new there.

For an explanation as to 'why', call your local NDP MLA.

.

Fair enough! Pretty sad Albertans voted for this type of philosophy.

nick0danger · #5 05-09-2017, 08:41 PM

These high earners might also move there money out, and now they get none of there tax base.

JohninAB · #6 05-09-2017, 08:46 PM

Newview01 · #7 05-09-2017, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fur

Fair enough! Pretty sad Albertans voted for this type of philosophy.

I fear it may happen again.

huntsfurfish · #8 05-09-2017, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Newview01

I fear it may happen again.

Yup, get used to it. Only 2 1/2 more terms.

Trochu · #9 05-09-2017, 09:45 PM

At least its not our Alberta's NDP government taxing Albertans and giving the money to NS residence. We are so well off that, what the heck, lets do it....

To the OP, almost all governments in Canada have a spending problem, and instead of addressing that, they simply try to increase the money coming in while still getting elected. They are running out of incoming streams. I believe the though processes is it will increase the incoming funds, but as it only financially effects 3,700 people and possible will "benefit" 10,000?, lets do it.

Fur · #10 05-09-2017, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trochu

At least its not our Alberta's NDP government taxing Albertans and giving the money to NS residence. We are so well off that, what the heck, lets do it....

To the OP, almost all governments in Canada have a spending problem, and instead of addressing that, they simply try to increase the money coming in while still getting elected. They are running out of incoming streams. I believe the though processes is it will increase the incoming funds, but as it only financially effects 3,700 people and possible will "benefit" 10,000?, lets do it.

Buying votes with other people's money, wake up Canada!

ReconWilly · #11 05-10-2017, 07:23 AM

It's impossible to make those with perfect vision see what's happening right in front of them.

Grizzly Adams · #12 05-10-2017, 07:32 AM

I'm sure the Irvines will be exempted.

Grizz

dmac · #13 05-10-2017, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams

I'm sure the Irvines will be exempted.

Grizz

Its Irving and they're from NB.

elkhunter11 · #14 05-10-2017, 08:44 AM

I can see these wealthy people leaving NS, and NS losing all tax revenue from them as a result. So the end result, would be a loss of revenue.

Okotokian · #15 05-10-2017, 08:49 AM

I'm alright with progressive taxation, with the better off not only paying more but also a higher percentage of their income. But I think there has to be a limit, a level at which one says "OK, he's paying enough". We can argue what that level is, but in some jurisdictions in Canada it's now over 50%. The government gets more from your labour than you do. That's too much. It borders on obscene when you stop and think about it.

whiteout · #16 05-10-2017, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Okotokian

I'm alright with progressive taxation, with the better off not only paying more but also a higher percentage of their income. But I think there has to be a limit, a level at which one says "OK, he's paying enough". We can argue what that level is, but in some jurisdictions in Canada it's now over 50%. The government gets more from your labour than you do. That's too much. It borders on obscene when you stop and think about it.

Why would you be alright with that? How is it fair that someone who puts more effort in has more taken from them only because they are rewarded more for their efforts?

Okotokian · #17 05-10-2017, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whiteout

Why would you be alright with that? How is it fair that someone who puts more effort in has more taken from them only because they are rewarded more for their efforts?

What is the alternative? Are you proposing that a person that makes $30,000 a year pays $5,000 in tax and a person that makes $300,000 a year pays $5000 in tax? I don't think we could run any appropriate level of government on that.

Bolete · #18 05-10-2017, 09:08 AM

Flat tax.

TBD · #19 05-10-2017, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Okotokian

What is the alternative? Are you proposing that a person that makes $30,000 a year pays $5,000 in tax and a person that makes $300,000 a year pays $5000 in tax? I don't think we could run any appropriate level of government on that.

no ones talking about a fixed maximum amount in taxes charged ...

how about we move back to kleins policy ^ - flat rate 10 %

that way the person making 30K pays 3 K and the one in your example making 300,000 pays $30,000 grand.

TBD

PS ... I think most of us here can live with that ?

... the guy making $300K pays 10x more

eh ?

that ought make the socialist in this country happy ? --- but it never seems to be enough, Does it ?

TBD · #20 05-10-2017, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whiteout

Why would you be alright with that? How is it fair that someone who puts more effort in has more taken from them only because they are rewarded more for their efforts?

the high income earners moved all their money to Belize, and went on strike.

Hey ? ... get in line at a soup kitchen in the NE, enroll for NDP handouts and welfare -- just take a break ?

fargineyesore · #21 05-10-2017, 10:11 AM

NDP here is doing the same thing aren't they? They call it a Carbon Tax, but give rebates to a whole bunch of people.

I asked my MLA for a list of groups, etc. that receive a rebate on the Carbon Tax and this was her office's response:

"Approximately, two thirds of all Albertans will receive some form of carbon levy rebate. It would be impossible to provide a list."

Isn't that interesting, they institute a Carbon Tax, then claim to give 2/3s of the populace a rebate. So who's paying the tax then???

Guess who??? No different than what is going on in NS, but they're just calling it something different.

Okotokian · #22 05-10-2017, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TBD

no ones talking about a fixed maximum amount in taxes charged ...

how about we move back to kleins policy ^ - flat rate 10 %

that way the person making 30K pays 3 K and the one in your example making 300,000 pays $30,000 grand.

TBD

PS ... I think most of us here can live with that ?

... the guy making $300K pays 10x more

eh ?

that ought make the socialist in this country happy ? --- but it never seems to be enough, Does it ?

Nope, wasn't playing with numbers. I was responding to someone who thought it unfair that an individual pay more tax simply because he was more ambitions and successful. That would be a vote for a Poll tax (look it up). Your illustration has the rich person paying more tax, which I agree with.

TBD · #23 05-10-2017, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fargineyesore

NDP here is doing the same thing aren't they? They call it a Carbon Tax, but give rebates to a whole bunch of people.

...

No different than what is going on in NS, but they're just calling it something different.

How is the 3 billion in new taxes being collected in AB (in the name of the environment) not yet another socialist wealth distribution scheme ?

TBD

PS ... At the Federal level we have this socialist equalization "wealth distribution" scheme going on b/w provs which amounts to K-bec getting fully 6/10 of the cake and the marintimes getting the rest.

... and then within our own prov we have the provincial politicos running the carbon tax as a socialist wealth distribution scheme - with many more user fees and services (education - gov't - municipal) moving in the same direction.

... as an Albertan I have to admit, my butt's getting a little sore ! I think the neu'fies have this figured out -- live in the "have not" jurisdictions and work in the "have"

TBD · #24 05-10-2017, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Okotokian

Nope, wasn't playing with numbers. I was responding to someone who thought it unfair that an individual pay more tax simply because he was more ambitions and successful. That would be a vote for a Poll tax (look it up). Your illustration has the rich person paying more tax, which I agree with.

He mean't "more tax" as in a higher percentage of his income.

you just added in the rest.

to spin out the narrative you usually portray on here.

DevilsAdvocate · #25 05-10-2017, 10:40 AM

One of the problems with these fantasy socialist schemes is that the more you earn, the more likely you are to have control of your earnings. And can change them or move them to other jurisdictions.

The Alberta NDP did this concept and campaigned on balancing the budget with the extra BILLION they were going to collect from this scheme. Wonder how its working out and how much they really collected.

Badgerbadger · #26 05-10-2017, 10:47 AM

I wonder how many people here understand how progressive tax rates work.

fargineyesore · #27 05-10-2017, 10:54 AM

I think most of us do, it's not complicated.

Say you make:

$30,000.00/yr you pay a certain percentage of your income for tax

$100,000.00/yr you pay a higher percentage of your income for tax than someone making $30,000.00/yr

$200,000.00/yr you pay a higher percentage of your income for tax than someone making $100,000.00/yr

The increased percentage of tax on your income can be for the entire amount, or can be for the amount over $30,000

Regardless, progressive taxing means that someone making more pays a higher percentage of their income than someone making less.

What is wrong with a flat tax, as the higher earner is still paying more than the lower earner?

Fur · #28 05-10-2017, 10:57 AM

I agree with flat tax. This concept of hitting those hard earned dollars to distribute wealth is ridiculous. Anyone who agrees with this is a closet thief. You want $200K salary? Get to work.

Selkirk · #29 05-10-2017, 11:13 AM

.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohninAB

That ^ was going to be a good one, but the last point ruined it ... #5 is BS.

Selkirk

Okotokian · #30 05-10-2017, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TBD

He mean't "more tax" as in a higher percentage of his income.

you just added in the rest.

to spin out the narrative you usually portray on here.

Again, twisting, bobbing and avoiding, like you always do, on nearly every subject.

wow, this is fun to generalize and take it to a persona level. I can see why love doing it so much.

LOL