Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old 07-22-2018, 12:01 AM
expedition expedition is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 584
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Thumper View Post
Not sure why he(expedition) has so little faith in Canadian workers that they can't demand what they are worth from their employers? Having a government legislate minimum wage is arbitrary and may give employers an easy way to always pay instead of negotiating a fair wage.
If you are correct then employers wouldnt care if it goes up . But the truth is there is always a vulnerable population out there who have no choice.

Last edited by expedition; 07-22-2018 at 12:17 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 07-22-2018, 12:10 AM
raab raab is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,858
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by expedition View Post
If you are correct then employers wouldnt care if it goes up . But the truth is there is always a vulnerable population out there who count on a low wages.
And that's where a negative income tax comes in. Basically you take a set amount and you don't pay tax under that, but get a refund. Let's say the amount set is 40k with a 50% rate for easy math. So if you make nothing in a year you would be paid 50% of the difference between 0 and 40k. Meaning you would take home 20k. Now let's say you could earn 10k. You now take the 30k difference and again divide it in half. So with you 10k and the 15k refund you end up making 25k. That's the essence of a negative income tax. A tax of this kind would replace all welfare programs.
__________________
“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.” John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 07-22-2018, 12:58 AM
expedition expedition is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 584
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by raab View Post
And that's where a negative income tax comes in. Basically you take a set amount and you don't pay tax under that, but get a refund. Let's say the amount set is 40k with a 50% rate for easy math. So if you make nothing in a year you would be paid 50% of the difference between 0 and 40k. Meaning you would take home 20k. Now let's say you could earn 10k. You now take the 30k difference and again divide it in half. So with you 10k and the 15k refund you end up making 25k. That's the essence of a negative income tax. A tax of this kind would replace all welfare programs.
Interesting . In your opinion would it be cheaper than welfare?
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 07-22-2018, 06:28 AM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 44,842
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by huntsfurfish View Post
Ya right.

There was life before amazon, would be life after it as well.

The void would be filled.
The void would be filled, by someone else willing to do the work and take the risk with their money, but only if those investors are allowed to reap the rewards. If you tax them so high that you keep them at a middle class income, nobody will do the work, or take the risk.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 07-22-2018, 07:45 AM
Badgerbadger Badgerbadger is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,187
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by raab View Post
And that's where a negative income tax comes in. Basically you take a set amount and you don't pay tax under that, but get a refund. Let's say the amount set is 40k with a 50% rate for easy math. So if you make nothing in a year you would be paid 50% of the difference between 0 and 40k. Meaning you would take home 20k. Now let's say you could earn 10k. You now take the 30k difference and again divide it in half. So with you 10k and the 15k refund you end up making 25k. That's the essence of a negative income tax. A tax of this kind would replace all welfare programs.
To extend your proposal of progressive tax rates, why not just have 1% rate jumps for every $10K over your proposed base of $40k?

ie. If you make $50K, you pay 1% of the extra $10K, or $100 in income tax. If you make $60K you pay 1% of the first $10K and 2% of the next $10K for a total of $300. If you make $100K, you pay a total of $2100, if you make $150K you pay $6600 and so on up to a max rate of $95% at $1million. Above $1million, you pay $9500 of every $10K you make

General question: Does it bug you that the company you work for pays less income tax than you do? And they can write off stuff prior to taxation that you and I have to pay for after we're taxed.
__________________
"It'd be nice if...."
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 07-22-2018, 08:21 AM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 44,842
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Badgerbadger View Post
To extend your proposal of progressive tax rates, why not just have 1% rate jumps for every $10K over your proposed base of $40k?

ie. If you make $50K, you pay 1% of the extra $10K, or $100 in income tax. If you make $60K you pay 1% of the first $10K and 2% of the next $10K for a total of $300. If you make $100K, you pay a total of $2100, if you make $150K you pay $6600 and so on up to a max rate of $95% at $1million. Above $1million, you pay $9500 of every $10K you make

General question: Does it bug you that the company you work for pays less income tax than you do? And they can write off stuff prior to taxation that you and I have to pay for after we're taxed.
It would bug me if the company that I worked for paid the same rate of income tax that I did, and if they lost their write offs. It would bug me, because I would have been unemployed, because the plant that I worked at, would never have been built, because it wouldn't have been profitable.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 07-22-2018, 08:46 AM
Trochu's Avatar
Trochu Trochu is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,595
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Badgerbadger View Post
General question: Does it bug you that the company you work for pays less income tax than you do? And they can write off stuff prior to taxation that you and I have to pay for after we're taxed.
The only way this is happening is if the company isn't making any money. The company I work for pays considerably more tax, CPP, and EI in a month than I do in a year. Is it EI that doubles for every dollar paid to employees? Pretty sure they pay more in just EI in a month than I do in a year.

Where are you getting your info from?

And no, it does bug me that the company I work for is profitable, which allows me to have a job.
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 07-22-2018, 08:53 AM
roughneckin roughneckin is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,045
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trochu View Post
The only way this is happening is if the company isn't making any money. The company I work for pays considerably more tax, CPP, and EI in a month than I do in a year. Is it EI that doubles for every dollar paid to employees? Pretty sure they pay more in just EI in a month than I do in a year.

Where are you getting your info from?

And no, it does bug me that the company I work for is profitable, which allows me to have a job.
I think badger means % wise not total amount.
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 07-22-2018, 09:13 AM
sns2's Avatar
sns2 sns2 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: My House
Posts: 13,446
Default

More errors on this thread than a 10th grade essay...
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 07-22-2018, 09:19 AM
Trochu's Avatar
Trochu Trochu is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,595
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sns2 View Post
More errors on this thread than a 10th grade essay...
It would be nice if we could edit our posts more than 5 minutes from posting. I think this is the only forum I've been on that locks them...
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 07-22-2018, 09:28 AM
sns2's Avatar
sns2 sns2 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: My House
Posts: 13,446
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trochu View Post
It would be nice if we could edit our posts more than 5 minutes from posting. I think this is the only forum I've been on that locks them...
Don't quote me, but I think you have 30 minutes.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 07-22-2018, 10:06 AM
Big Thumper Big Thumper is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,066
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by expedition View Post
If you are correct then employers wouldnt care if it goes up . But the truth is there is always a vulnerable population out there who have no choice.
In Canada, just over 90% of minimum wage earners are students and other young people just entering the work force.
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 07-22-2018, 10:11 AM
Badgerbadger Badgerbadger is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,187
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by roughneckin View Post
I think badger means % wise not total amount.
While I expected people here to understand that, I guess it needed explicit statement. I'm sorry for my lack of clarity.

Yes, income tax rate, not absolute dollars.
__________________
"It'd be nice if...."
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 07-22-2018, 10:16 AM
Big Thumper Big Thumper is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,066
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Badgerbadger View Post
General question: Does it bug you that the company you work for pays less income tax than you do? And they can write off stuff prior to taxation that you and I have to pay for after we're taxed.
There's actually a very good chance that we'd be better off economically if corporations paid no tax at all. This would make them more profitable , stronger and in a better position to hire. Of course these profits would still end up being taxed when the money is paid out to the employees in the form of wages or taxed when the owners take money out of the company in the form of dividends.
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 07-22-2018, 10:34 AM
bessiedog's Avatar
bessiedog bessiedog is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,372
Default Wow!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Thumper View Post
In Canada, just over 90% of minimum wage earners are students and other young people just entering the work force.
Where the heck did you come up with that?!?!?

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/.../54974-eng.htm

I read way differenter than that... (‘differenter’ is a gr 9 vocab tool)

You just inventing numbers...?
__________________
"How vain it is to sit down to write when you have not stood up to live.”
-HDT
"A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends on the character of the user." T. Roosevelt
"I don't always troll, only on days that end in Y."
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 07-22-2018, 10:45 AM
Big Thumper Big Thumper is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,066
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bessiedog View Post
Where the heck did you come up with that?!?!?

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/.../54974-eng.htm

I read way differenter than that... (‘differenter’ is a gr 9 vocab tool)

You just inventing numbers...?
My mistake, I was reading last night but the 90.4% was for a more local jurisdiction. However, a good read here, please note that , according to this, only 2% of minimum wage earners are the sole sourse of household income:

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/blog...-who-you-think
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 07-22-2018, 11:00 AM
bessiedog's Avatar
bessiedog bessiedog is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,372
Default

Fraser institute ...........

Is this the part where we challenge sources..... you accuse statscan of being lefty biased and I accuse you of using an admitted right wing think tank as your biased source...?

And then we retreat into our own worlds ..?

Cause my stats says your stats are kinda out ta lunch ....


Oh... and your ‘don’t tax the corporations cause they make us good’ theory was kinda disproven a couple times....

1. Industrial Revolution England...... the Factory Acts didn’t create themselves.
2. The Industrial Revolution USA..... look up ‘RobberBarons’
3. Reaganomics and that whole ‘Trickle Down economics’ thing..... which is kinda like feudalism.... sorta.... kinda.... an that wuz fun.

Oh! oh!... ever heard of the Family Compact....? Still goin in if you ask me.

Fact:

80% of wealth held by 10% of Canadians. Ole Fraser boys admit to 70% for 25 or 30.
5 Canadians have more wealth than 30% of Canadians.

There’s room for some sharing methinks.
__________________
"How vain it is to sit down to write when you have not stood up to live.”
-HDT
"A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends on the character of the user." T. Roosevelt
"I don't always troll, only on days that end in Y."

Last edited by bessiedog; 07-22-2018 at 11:17 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 07-22-2018, 11:13 AM
Badgerbadger Badgerbadger is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,187
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Thumper View Post
There's actually a very good chance that we'd be better off economically if corporations paid no tax at all. This would make them more profitable , stronger and in a better position to hire. Of course these profits would still end up being taxed when the money is paid out to the employees in the form of wages or taxed when the owners take money out of the company in the form of dividends.
Not really. In fact, it's the opposite.

First off, as demonstrated by the recent actions south of the border, corporations directed money towards buying back shares, rather than to increasing workers wages.

Second, corporations take money out of the local economy (profit going to shareholders who are not local).

Third, and to bring this back to increases in minimum wage, each dollar spent locally generates a multiplier effect where that dollar circulates generating local benefits.

Personally, i'd rather my community benefited from the education, infrastructure, health care, resources, etc. that attracted people who wanted to leverage those things for their own profit.
__________________
"It'd be nice if...."
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 07-22-2018, 12:06 PM
Big Thumper Big Thumper is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,066
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Badgerbadger View Post
Not really. In fact, it's the opposite.

First off, as demonstrated by the recent actions south of the border, corporations directed money towards buying back shares, rather than to increasing workers wages.

Second, corporations take money out of the local economy (profit going to shareholders who are not local).

Third, and to bring this back to increases in minimum wage, each dollar spent locally generates a multiplier effect where that dollar circulates generating local benefits.

Personally, i'd rather my community benefited from the education, infrastructure, health care, resources, etc. that attracted people who wanted to leverage those things for their own profit.
Buying back shares is not a bad thing. Its helps out the shareholders who are ordinary people like you and me, especially in the case of public corporations. People on the left complained when the USA companies used some money to do this yet the USA economy is now setting records and unemployment is at all time lows.
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 07-22-2018, 12:31 PM
expedition expedition is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 584
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Thumper View Post
Buying back shares is not a bad thing. Its helps out the shareholders who are ordinary people like you and me, especially in the case of public corporations. People on the left complained when the USA companies used some money to do this yet the USA economy is now setting records and unemployment is at all time lows.
This is a tread about min wage . Can i assume you are sayng we should not increase min wage so that the top wage earners can buy more shares on the backs of the poor . Cheers
Reply With Quote
  #141  
Old 07-22-2018, 12:38 PM
Big Thumper Big Thumper is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,066
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by expedition View Post
This is a tread about min wage . Can i assume you are sayng we should not increase min wage so that the top wage earners can buy more shares on the backs of the poor . Cheers
Not at all. I don't think you really understand who owns the corporations. Its people like you and me.
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 07-22-2018, 01:01 PM
Trochu's Avatar
Trochu Trochu is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,595
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Badgerbadger View Post
While I expected people here to understand that, I guess it needed explicit statement. I'm sorry for my lack of clarity.

Yes, income tax rate, not absolute dollars.
No problem. And yes, I agree, the individual rate is too high for what they spend it on.
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 07-22-2018, 01:49 PM
expedition expedition is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 584
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Thumper View Post
Not at all. I don't think you really understand who owns the corporations. Its people like you and me.
I think some shares are held by average joes. But definately 80 % of wealth or corporations are held by top 10% of yhe population . And way worse in the us.
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 07-22-2018, 02:11 PM
Prophet River Prophet River is offline
AO Sponsor
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,657
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by expedition View Post
I think some shares are held by average joes. But definately 80 % of wealth or corporations are held by top 10% of yhe population . And way worse in the us.
If you pay into CPP, own mutual funds, pension plan, etc, you own shares.
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 07-22-2018, 03:03 PM
expedition expedition is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 584
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prophet River View Post
If you pay into CPP, own mutual funds, pension plan, etc, you own shares.
I do realize this fact. I dont think 80 % of corporations are held by 80% population.
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 07-22-2018, 03:11 PM
raab raab is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,858
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Badgerbadger View Post
To extend your proposal of progressive tax rates, why not just have 1% rate jumps for every $10K over your proposed base of $40k?

ie. If you make $50K, you pay 1% of the extra $10K, or $100 in income tax. If you make $60K you pay 1% of the first $10K and 2% of the next $10K for a total of $300. If you make $100K, you pay a total of $2100, if you make $150K you pay $6600 and so on up to a max rate of $95% at $1million. Above $1million, you pay $9500 of every $10K you make

General question: Does it bug you that the company you work for pays less income tax than you do? And they can write off stuff prior to taxation that you and I have to pay for after we're taxed.
I dont believe in a progressive tax. After the base amount I think what you earn should be taxed the same no matter the amount. A progressive tax again encourages people not to be productive.

As for companies getting tax writeoffs, no I dont like most of them. The only one I really like is the charitable donations as I feel those help to reduce the need for government resources. I'd like to see companies have a flat tax with the only write off being charitable donations. Same as a personal tax.
__________________
“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.” John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 07-22-2018, 03:14 PM
raab raab is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,858
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by expedition View Post
Interesting . In your opinion would it be cheaper than welfare?
It would undoubtedly be cheaper then welfare as we could most likely cut at least 50% of the bureaucrats working for the government welfare program. It would also be much easier to track and determine what benefits someone is entitled to.
__________________
“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.” John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 07-22-2018, 03:33 PM
raab raab is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,858
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bessiedog View Post
Fraser institute ...........

Is this the part where we challenge sources..... you accuse statscan of being lefty biased and I accuse you of using an admitted right wing think tank as your biased source...?

And then we retreat into our own worlds ..?

Cause my stats says your stats are kinda out ta lunch ....


Oh... and your ‘don’t tax the corporations cause they make us good’ theory was kinda disproven a couple times....

1. Industrial Revolution England...... the Factory Acts didn’t create themselves.
2. The Industrial Revolution USA..... look up ‘RobberBarons’

3. Reaganomics and that whole ‘Trickle Down economics’ thing..... which is kinda like feudalism.... sorta.... kinda.... an that wuz fun.

Oh! oh!... ever heard of the Family Compact....? Still goin in if you ask me.

Fact:

80% of wealth held by 10% of Canadians. Ole Fraser boys admit to 70% for 25 or 30.
5 Canadians have more wealth than 30% of Canadians.

There’s room for some sharing methinks.
I dont think its any secret to anyone who followed Milton Friedman that I like his ideas. In saying that here he is talking about the "Robber Baron" Myth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmzZ8lCLhlk
__________________
“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.” John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 07-22-2018, 04:07 PM
Badgerbadger Badgerbadger is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,187
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by raab View Post
I dont believe in a progressive tax. After the base amount I think what you earn should be taxed the same no matter the amount. A progressive tax again encourages people not to be productive.

As for companies getting tax writeoffs, no I dont like most of them. The only one I really like is the charitable donations as I feel those help to reduce the need for government resources. I'd like to see companies have a flat tax with the only write off being charitable donations. Same as a personal tax.
I'm interested in why you think a progressive tax discourages people from being productive.

While it's true that at certain levels, you pay more tax on $'s earned over those levels, you still take home more than people who make less than those levels, so the harder you work, the more you make.
__________________
"It'd be nice if...."
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 07-22-2018, 04:35 PM
roughneckin roughneckin is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,045
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Badgerbadger View Post
I'm interested in why you think a progressive tax discourages people from being productive.

While it's true that at certain levels, you pay more tax on $'s earned over those levels, you still take home more than people who make less than those levels, so the harder you work, the more you make.
X2. I’ve heard people complain about the extra money the tax man takes on OT hours but I’ve never heard someone say that they don’t want a raise or work more OT cause they will pay more taxes.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.