Fed Issue #23 - Federal Liberals eye tax on private health and dental plans, grabbing $2.9B

Federal Liberals eye tax on private health and dental plans, a move that would take in about $2.9B
http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/new...-in-about-2-9b

The employee-sponsored health care tax exemption is being scrutinized as part of a sweeping review of 150 tax credits worth about $100 billion a year in foregone federal revenue.

** Translation - goal of taking $100 billion out of Canadians pockets
Most employee benefits are taxed – for example, life insurance paid by employers are reported on employees’ T4 slips and included as taxable income. Similarly, a car paid for by an employer is taxed.

But health benefits are an exception. Proponents of eliminating the credit argue that those with lower incomes but without private health plans are subsidizing those with employee-sponsored coverage.

On the other hand, there is a strong economic case for encouraging employers to provide health coverage for employees.

Quebec included health and dental plans as a taxable benefit in the early 2000s and found that employers scaled back the coverage offered.
...

** Translation - we want their money and don't give a s*** about working people

...
The 2016 budget removed the children’s fitness tax credit and the children’s arts tax credit.

** Translation - we want their money and don't give a s*** about working people' kids too

Sunny days.

But,he' has nice hair,though.

But, ah, the, ah, budget, ah, will, ah, balance, ah, itself.

Read up on it. It is the right thing to do.
Providing the revenue actually goes towards (allows) for the offsetting tax credit.


The panel suggested the maximum tax credit would be $750 for a single person earning less than $44,000 or $1,500 for a family with income below $89,000.

This policy could be defended on the grounds that it would remove a distortion from the tax code that sees the relatively well-off (public servants and people who work for large companies) have their health and dental costs subsidized, while the four in 10 Canadians without workplace policies have to buy insurance from after-tax income.
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-co...y-down-deficit
*******
How often have we brought up that for the "average" person ( by definition those around the means). Who don't earn 70,000 as a single person, the mean is $70,000 duo.....don't have a Pension, can't save, are getting hammered. Working hard so others don't have to....
Or small business owners, or self employed....

4 in 10 Canadians have to get private insurance. That comes out of their after tax disposable income.
For people with companies and large plans its "gratis", where many other things be it a car/loan/mortgage/gym membership/life insurance it's a taxable benefit thats added to income for the calendar year.

So what they are talking about is taxing those plans (raising say 3billion) and then giving people who have to get their own plans a tax credit that might cost the Feds the same.

So take some person who earns say 80k, has a pension, has great benefits ( not taxed) and another person who earns say the same 80k, or a family, but has to pay for a private plan and pay for their own retirement..

Who needs it more?

it is about setting a different standard. yes, you might equalize here, but that one is just another step in LOWERING the overall living standards in Canada.
why not go the other way? why does health care need to be taxed to start with? we talk about health care plans that people have to get, because a good bunch of things are not covered by provincial medicare. so what is the share government takes here? it is not a tax that is used to build a road or school. you (or your employer) has to pay because the government does not do enough to begin with.
if I'm paying myself, why should government cash in for not taking sufficient care of their citizens?
I'm just always amazed how they manage to sell it to us. Just read a CP24 article that said cost of food will go up and Trump is to blame; carbon tax was not mentioned even once.

They are going to tax " Health care plans" not gym or club memberships or perq company vehicles. That tax money is not going to help those who can't afford health care. We all know it's going into general revenue to give civil servants raises. The Carbon taxes will reduce the capacity to buy food and now they are taking health care money too. When they get their own fiscal house in order then they will legitimately be able to look at new taxes. When Quebec implemented tax of health plans the workers suffered lower benefits and services covered. A huge part of health plans is prescription drugs. Many won't be able to afford them and likely end up in the hospital system at $$ thousands a day or add pressure to over worked and underfunded ER. This is not about health care. It's about retaining power by having money to lube the public service.

Did you bother to read the article Terry, because it doesn't seem like it.

Current tax code as I said treats things like LI, gym memberships, cars, etc...As Taxable benefits. Why not health/dental plans?

If your receiving something ( A benefit) from your company that saves you money, it is in essence income. Just because its not cash money, doesnt mean it isnt so. Maybe you favor a world where the company pays minimum wage and gives you loafs of bread instead so it's not taxable as income? Sounds like it...

So, if all these other things are treated as taxable benefits......

And then further.
Without arguement, it's irrefutable that the so called middle class is being pummelled.
Further 6 in 10 dont have Pensions, can't save
Further another 4 in 10 have to pay for their own private plans at full cost, with after tax dollars. I imagine a big chunk of these are the self employed and small businesses

Imo, walk a mile in their shoes.
************

True, its possible they may do many things. Whether they do or dont doesnt change the merit of this.

I would like to bring the less up not bring the more down.

We are all paying way too much now.

Agree Glen, but then the ? As always is how? That's rhetorical btw. But that "arguement" can be spun many ways.

Are the wealthy and well off not tearing the working stiffs down now as is?
Johnny Q is self employed. He and his wife gross $70,000. No Pension, no health/dental, so they pay for both with after tax dollars

Johhny P is employed in PS. Grosses $70,000 has an amazing tax payer funded pension and health/dental.

Always more than one way to look at things.

The key with this proposed change to tax code, is that benefits be they company cars, gym memberships, loans, Computers bought through the Co are taxed as "taxable benefits". In essence "income" over and above your salary. And why not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

Did you bother to read the article Terry, because it doesn't seem like it.

Current tax code as I said treats things like LI, gym memberships, cars, etc...As Taxable benefits. Why not health/dental plans?

If your receiving something ( A benefit) from your company that saves you money, it is in essence income. Just because its not cash money, doesnt mean it isnt so. Maybe you favor a world where the company pays minimum wage and gives you loafs of bread instead so it's not taxable as income? Sounds like it...

So, if all these other things are treated as taxable benefits......

And then further.
Without arguement, it's irrefutable that the so called middle class is being pummelled.
Further 6 in 10 dont have Pensions, can't save
Further another 4 in 10 have to pay for their own private plans at full cost, with after tax dollars. I imagine a big chunk of these are the self employed and small businesses

Imo, walk a mile in their shoes.
************

True, its possible they may do many things. Whether they do or dont doesnt change the merit of this.

---

yes of course I read the article. My point is health care benefits should not be taxed like the other perqs. Also the middle class tend to be employed full time with most having health benefits plans so again those lieing bazturds are screwing us. Take away the sports deductions from our kids and now tax the dental work too. Slap on a carbon tax to raise the cost of food production and you will see quality of food consumed deteriorates. The money goes to fat pay increases and improved benefits for government employees.

THose would by the 65% of hard working people that dont have Pensions, and another 40% that dont have health/dental, your referring to?

You do know that the mean in both Ontario and Canada is 70-75k duo? By definition thats the middle class. And with the sky rocketing cost of living, taxation, more. Its no wonder they cant save a dime for their futures and 40% of people pay for their own plans...

What you think that's because its the lazy?
I swear people that live and work in the GTA have lost touch with reality/perspective. Please dont take offense, I count (ed) myself among that for many years.

news flash Terry, have you looked at Healthcare lately? There are huge gaping cracks.
Granted one reason for that is the usual waste, overspending etc, etc.
Another is we dont pay enough.<<< Could also be worded as "we pay a ton already, but so much is wasted, or goes to other things/people, etc)

Bottom line
Healthcare is the biggest drain on the budgets. Period.
And it's getting worse (cost)
And the cracks are getting worse.

Oddly enough I just paid out of pocket today for a colonoscopy.

All of the shell games go on just to confuse people.
Total tax amount is the number I would like to see. Then compare it to other countries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

Did you bother to read the article Terry, because it doesn't seem like it.

Current tax code as I said treats things like LI, gym memberships, cars, etc...As Taxable benefits. Why not health/dental plans?

If your receiving something ( A benefit) from your company that saves you money, it is in essence income. Just because its not cash money, doesnt mean it isnt so. Maybe you favor a world where the company pays minimum wage and gives you loafs of bread instead so it's not taxable as income? Sounds like it...

---

i have been paying taxes for over 40 years. I have had jobs that were 100% commission based and have pretty well always enjoyed all the perquisit benefits you are trying to lecture me on. I am quite informed on our tax laws. But where in the hell you ever read me saying this cr@p above about companies paying minimum wage and doling out loaves of bread truly baffles the hell out if me. These money grubbing policies like carbon taxes and health benefit taxes hurt the middle class far more than the upper classes through inflation and reduced disposable income. The guy making $200k won't notice the cost of his increased health benefits because it's peanuts to him. The guy making $60k basically pays the same amount, who do you think will have to cutback more?

It was sarcasm, intended to highlight your comment about taxable benefits
The guy making 60k if he/she is one of the 60% with nothing..........

And terry if you don't understand, that huge chunks of Canada don't have Pensions or Benefits. Im not sure what to say and most of those will be the small businesses/self employed. And if you take "pride" in getting what you have/where you are in life without leaning on Govt.
fine, pay for your health dental like almost half the country does.
Or pay a little extra in tax, by having it treated as a taxable benefit like virtually every other benefit.

And before I go.
Was I in favour Orp?

Arguing that the money will be redirected or squandered ( E-Health) is an entirely different argument from whether a change to tax code makes sense. Which this does.

Jben, I respectfully disagree that healthcare is the biggest drain on the budgets.
People who are unwilling to work is.
We pay more and more and more....the only people who benefit 100% from this type of BS are the people who choose not to work.
I say we funnel this type of money to WORKING people only and see how that works.
The person behind you or in front of you who does not work because he chooses not to, just got his/her colonoscopy for FREE.
Thanks to us.
...I do hope you will be ok Jben. Hope your tests come back fine. Wishing you well.

I'm not denying many don't have benefits. I'm not denying a lot of those benefits should be taxable. I pay tax on my benefits, I'm ok with that. But healthcare should not be part of that. It's just eventually going to end up straining the overburdened health system. We already pay a health surtax in Ontario. And you keep bringing up pensions, I don't have a company pension so the increased taxes I will pay in carbon and now health taxes reduce what I have available to contribute to my personal plan. I either cutback my contributions or cut back on spending. When a large chunk of the population cuts spending back the economy shrinks as does employment and standard of living. So, again it's obvious this government only cares about re-election and couldn't care less about our kids or health of the country.

You are always free to disagree Nosey. That said
I'll use Ontario because it smaller/simpler. healthcare eats almost 50% of the budget.
https://www.ontario.ca/page/summary-table-1-operating

Terry I "get ya", and while I would normally "agree", good tax code is good tax code. And in this case it's good. Id say that no matter who was in. Harper at one time was tarred and feathered because he changed the tax code on REITs.....Sometimes, things makes sense and sometimes they don't.


Healthcare is something we take for granted here (despite it's many cracks and problems). How often do Americans point at Canada ands "Wish we had their free healthcare".

Except 1) It's not free
Except 2) Some of it, is free for some.

We can't control (other than with our votes) how governments spend (or waste) tax revenue. That doesn't change whether or not some element of tax code makes sense, or is "good".

Huge chunks of the populace have neither Pensions or Benefits and, more pay no taxes on their health/dental benefits ( a form of income). We could also argue that even those who have benefits. Some have caviar plans, some have beer plans. Not all benefit plans are equal.
Why shouldn't some that be taxable.

Over burdened system.
Yep, your talking to a guy who in the last ten years has shelled out over $40,000 in medical expenses. Have also shelled out a lot for one of my daughters..who by the way these days is self employed, works 6 days a week ( like many, and many more in years to come will).And has private plan, she has to pay for with after tax dollars. I know she's a lazy bum with no drive to make it on her own.

And I know many others who
A) Are paying a lot for medical and a couple who have flown to the states despite paying huge amounts in tax dollars

B) Are self employed or small business that have private plans

Explain to me Terry why I. Who would pay more in taxes some years than many people bring home. Why I had to pay over $40,000, and why if my cancer comes back I'm going to the states at my own expense?

Pretty scary numbers being allocated to certain areas that seem to be used by the same "groups" of people.
Geesh.
There's never going to be a, "right way" to do any of this.
Everyone should get the same level of health care and it should all be "free."
Why should you have to pay for a procedure that someone else doesn't have to pay for even AFTER you've paid taxes and taxes and more taxes...beginning with your paycheque while the other person doesn't contribute?
In a fair world, that would not happen.
We all know that this world isn't always fair or right or sane.
It is what it is.
In the end, it's the working classes who are paying for everything.
That's just wrong in my opinion.
The gov't will funnel whatever they don't have to use for this project into the next "bleeding heart" fund or their own, "me, me, me" funds.
....and you and I will pay the price.
Why should we have to pay for anothers incarceration, legal fees, etc?
Go to jail?
You pay.
Need a lawyer?
You pay.
Need food, housing,heat, clothing, hydro and capable of working?
You pay.
Not me.
Wonder how much we could save if we stopped paying for all of those things for everyone else?
Jben, I commend your daughter on her work ethic. I hope you did not think I was implying she is a lazy bum because I certainly would not include people like her who work into the "groups" (for lack of the politically correct term) of people I am speaking about.

Lol, yep. :)

Personally, I suspect there will be more and more people going to more and more private clinics in years to come. Why should anyone who pays a lot in taxes already, have to pay for private procedures, or private plans, or procedures that are no longer covered under OHIP?

And its only going to get worse.

And that is one reason why I believe this is a good change to tax code. How its spent? Who knows. If a tax credit for those with private plans ( Think just the cost of prescription drugs these days and seniors)...........

Do agree that the working class is taking it on the chin. Now I hope this doesn't go downhill or off the rails but the second, third and 4th largest budget eaters?
Education
Salaries and overhead
Debt servicing.

I won't play a fiddle if those with gold plated pensions, gold-plated benefit plans and who make far more than the working stiffs have to start paying their own way for a change, and it gives those who are getting taxed to the teeth a $1,500/year tax credit. Maybe then, they might have $1,500 to put in an RSP or TFSA every year.

Will there be people who this means another $200-$300 ( Guesstimate assuming $100/month payroll deduction and 24% Fed income tax on $1,200 benefit) a year in taxes, who likewise are around or a little above the mean.
Yep. Atleast they have plans.

Many don't.
/looks at Alberta where unemployment is now 9%
/looks at Ontario, rural Ontario
And just regular people getting hammered.

As for the rest.
Well a politician did come along who said he'd save cost,eliminate waste . He got pummelled. And so has every other politicians since around the 80s who has said we can no longer afford to do everything, be everything, for everyone.

But healthcare is something I think we all can agree on everyone should have access to (many don't), and everyone can agree is something we value highly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

Lol, yep. :)

Personally, I suspect there will be more and more people going to more and more private clinics in years to come. Why should anyone who pays a lot in taxes already, have to pay for private procedures, or private plans, or procedures that are no longer covered under OHIP?

And its only going to get worse.

And that is one reason why I believe this is a good change to tax code. How its spent? Who knows. If a tax credit for those with private plans ( Think just the cost of prescription drugs these days and seniors)...........

Do agree that the working class is taking it on the chin. Now I hope this doesn't go downhill or off the rails but the second, third and 4th largest budget eaters?
Education
Salaries and overhead
Debt servicing.

I won't play a fiddle if those with gold plated pensions, gold-plated benefit plans and who make far more than the working stiffs have to start paying their own way for a change, and it gives those who are getting taxed to the teeth a $1,500/year tax credit. Maybe then, they might have $1,500 to put in an RSP or TFSA every year.

Will there be people who this means another $200-$300 ( Guesstimate assuming $100/month payroll deduction and 24% Fed income tax on $1,200 benefit) a year in taxes, who likewise are around or a little above the mean.
Yep. Atleast they have plans.

Many don't.
/looks at Alberta where unemployment is now 9%
/looks at Ontario, rural Ontario
And just regular people getting hammered.

As for the rest.
Well a politician did come along who said he'd save cost,eliminate waste . He got pummelled. And so has every other politicians since around the 80s who has said we can no longer afford to do everything, be everything, for everyone.

But healthcare is something I think we all can agree on everyone should have access to (many don't), and everyone can agree is something we value highly.

---

Well said Jben
Very well said.

I get free coffee at work they going after that next

I wonder if Bill Morneau the Minister of Finance lists his chauffeur driven limo as a taxable benefit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

Read up on it. It is the right thing to do.
Providing the revenue actually goes towards (allows) for the offsetting tax credit.


The panel suggested the maximum tax credit would be $750 for a single person earning less than $44,000 or $1,500 for a family with income below $89,000.

This policy could be defended on the grounds that it would remove a distortion from the tax code that sees the relatively well-off (public servants and people who work for large companies) have their health and dental costs subsidized, while the four in 10 Canadians without workplace policies have to buy insurance from after-tax income.
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-co...y-down-deficit
*******
How often have we brought up that for the "average" person ( by definition those around the means). Who don't earn 70,000 as a single person, the mean is $70,000 duo.....don't have a Pension, can't save, are getting hammered. Working hard so others don't have to....
Or small business owners, or self employed....

4 in 10 Canadians have to get private insurance. That comes out of their after tax disposable income.
For people with companies and large plans its "gratis", where many other things be it a car/loan/mortgage/gym membership/life insurance it's a taxable benefit thats added to income for the calendar year.

So what they are talking about is taxing those plans (raising say 3billion) and then giving people who have to get their own plans a tax credit that might cost the Feds the same.

So take some person who earns say 80k, has a pension, has great benefits ( not taxed) and another person who earns say the same 80k, or a family, but has to pay for a private plan and pay for their own retirement..

Who needs it more?

---

Every one of the private sector employee benefits plans are part of the employee's pay package which is already taxed at source. Any benefits over and above that always show up on their T4's. Nothing is "free". Claiming that the benefit plans is extra undeclared income is flat-out wrong and typical Liberal "spin". Small businesses that need to purchase group insurance over and above that already supplied through provincial medicare plans may declare their premiums as a tax deduction as may individuals who have out-of-pocket dental,drug and physiotherapy treatment not covered by an insurance benefit plan called non-refundable tax credits. For lower income folks,these non-refundables can mean they pay ZERO taxes when calculated against their bottom line. So,with a plan like the Liberals just proposed,who's getting bent over the desk,now? I'm not buying one bit of this Robin Hood "take from the rich,give to the poor" bull.

I suppose I could be mistaken.
I suppose the articles writer could be mistaken.
I suppose the National Post editors (hardly left wing media) could make a collosal reporting error like that.
I suppose anyone's pay stub that will read like this
Total income:$10.00
less taxable benefit: $1.00
total gross income : $9.00
Then your deductions such as EI, CPP, Fed inc tax, health/dental.
Could be wrong.

heck I even suppose CRA could be wrong,
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/bsnss/tp.../prvt-eng.html

so yes Trimmer. Employer contributions are not taxed. So let's assume some well to do executive type with a caviar benefit plan where the employer pays a ton..maybe it's worth $5,000 a year. Or anyone else..no matter their lot in life (well off or with kick ask benefit plan, or both)

Thats $5,000 a year said well to do person "receives" tax free, over and above everything else.

Qualifying medical expenses.
yep, if a person incurs "out of pocket" medical expenses, they can be claimed towards a tax credit by anyone. Those out of pocket expenses include health plan premiums. So every year, everyone can count their health plan premiums towards that.

In order to receive anything back, first you have to exceed the threshold ( which is $2,000 give or take).
So unless you incur more than $2,000 in a calendar year, your getting squat. Most normal every day people won't exceed $2,000 in a calendar year. The typical health plan might cost someone with dependants $80-$100 a month. Executives, people with gold plated plans? I have zero doubt how much they are worth..........

Also know for a fact because our Company offered it, to anyone that could afford it. What was known as a type of "flex plan" through Great West Life. Anyone in our company could direct some (or all) of their bonuses (pre tax) towards extra coverage. Extra being more stuff not covered by the typical plan. I know the vast majority of employees scoffed when the Company announced it. While it sounded nice in theory, most real people had mortgages, kids, car loans, RSPs and TFSAs to fund first. I'm pretty sure a lot of the executives who would get 300k, 500k, a million or more in bonuses took advantage of it though. Just another way to shelter more money ( and I am all about legal tax avoidance) and if you could acquire some amazing extra health/dental coverage why not.

That the typical stiff could never get or afford.
See also why for the typical stiff without a Pension, RSPs aren't all that. Unless your in a higher tax bracket......they don't do anything.... So take two or 3 people. Both/all earn say $60,000.

A) No Pension, ok somewhat decent health plan. By the time life gets done with everything, not going to be a lot left for savings. And lets pray you don't get whacked by some nasty medical thing. Most real people can't afford critical illness insurance either.....which these days is becoming more and more necessary because less and less is being paid for, and people are surviving more and more. These days 95% of people survive heart attacks. Have fun paying the bills while your laid up for 4-6 months.

B) No Pension, no company benefits. By the time life and paying for their own beer budget health plan gets done with them...Even less for savings, and certainly critical illness insurance......

C) Great Pension. Eliminates the need to find pennies every year. The Mtg gets paid off a lot faster.
Great Benefit Plan. better coverage when life hits than A or B. And because the Co pays most of it, they have more of that 60-75k to do things with, like put into RSPs, TFSAs, RESPs or pay off car/boat loans, or buy some critical illness Insurance.

Person A or B?
Sucks to be you.

********
But if for some reason, the typical working stiff runs into things or their children do. Yep, you can claim it on your tax return. You'll get if I recall correctly 12% back on the dollar.

So let's say, in some calendar year you wring up $10,000 in expenses. You'll get a credit for 12% on $8,000 of it. I could be off on the rates, it's been years since I had to know this stuff, and in fact rang up huge expenses in a calendar year myself. But that's the gist of it. And luckily for me, I was not the norm. Being "well off" ( I made good coin, better than the mean) I could "afford" to pay those out of pocket expenses.

The average person?

And for added measure Im going to give three real life examples of how the typical stiff, gets stiffed. We will call them persons A B and C.

A) Has a medical condition, someones child, the child of really just everyday people who get zero help from the government because they earn around the mean, but have a child who.....That means this person will never hold a job ( well never say never, but it highly likely) that either pays very well (lets call that more than $50k) or has great benefits. As such, whatever meagre savings they may ever accumulate (again, lets consider reality) well, being in the lowest tax brackets. "sheltering" $5,000 for them ( assuming they will ever have $5,000 to shelter) is not the same as a person who is in a higher tax bracket and when they can shelter $5,000 well they are in the higher tax brackets and as such........ This person will without a doubt always have to save for retirement somehow on their own, and b) very likely have to pay for their own benefits.

B) Has many medical conditions, can't work and relies on us and what little money her hubby makes to get by. She/they spend roughly $3,000 a month in prescription drugs alone. Do they have Pensions, or good benefit plans? Do resent them bringing their "income" to zero or near zero?
Hardly. I don't know the last time they went for a $100 dinner at some restaurant, or took a trip to Cuba, or A to Z.

C) A self employed father. He suffered an aneurysm. Was clinically dead in his drive way. Paramedics revived him. Being self employed, he has no Pension, and beer budget benefits. He is still in the hospital, and likely will be for months. He won't like many working stiffs have critical illness insurance and there is no way, no matter what he will be able to return to his old life, old job. Too long without oxygen to the brain, later more strokes while in the hospital. He is very likely going to remain in some kind of long term care facility the rest of his life. As I said, these days 95% of people survive heart attacks....Strokes, more.........Also in part why "healthcare" is becoming so expensive. Twenty-30 years ago a life insurance premium would have been paid out and while it very painful to the spouse, children, loved ones....Well they aren't crushed by the resulting "cost".

.

No doubt, no argument. That for many who might see a further increase in taxes as a result, who likewise aren't all that "well off", they don't need this. Especially with so much already, be it Hydro, be it Carbon taxes, be it.....
But as I said, for the typical working stiff.............who is getting crushed but also has to somehow deal with reality ( retirement, mounting expenses, don't have benefits and have to pay for that as well).

If Im going to give someone a cup of coffee these days......
Ye, but for the god of god there go I

i'm going to read up on what's been posted later when I have a quiet minute, sure there'll gonna be some nuggets in there.
what surprises me a bit while glancing over the posts is the level of detail
isn't the bottom line that we pay increasingly more taxes (direct and indirect) and have less disposable income, which inevitably results in decent people having less opportunities to make good choices for them and their families?
so what is good tax code in light of that?
as it seems that equalizing is the concept some consider fair, why are we not talking about a simple flat tax rate - no exceptions for anyone on anything. it's fair, predictable and very cost effective

Good question Waftrudnir. I don't know if theres a satisfactory answer.
We used to talk about flat tax rates at work, and whether or not they might be the future. Can say by and large thoughts were mixed.

The world is not perfect, nor will it ever be. I am somewhat right of centre. I believe in social responsibilities, but fiscal things come first. Worded differently, theres a time and place for everything, but if we don't take care of the fiscal things first. Well you end up with Ontario, where now. All kinds of people are getting 'stiffed" so who do we try to "help". And the problems are so bad, and the debt so high we don't have the money to fix things. Want to fix just one thing in healthcare, say "wait times". Well that means more Nurses, more Doctors, more gurneys, more everything....And that means we need money to fix things.....

Raise taxes as this admin loves to do?
Rob Peter (Rural Ontario Hospitals) and pay Paul ( Big city Hospitals)?
Rob Peter B ( the MNR) and pay Paul (healthcare ministry)?
*******

Just mention the word "cutbacks" and the left and left side politicians blow gaskets. Want to reduce waste, not really "waste" but spending on some frivolous thing. I don't know, pick a ministry where 20 million is spent each year on something nice and useful but is it really needed?

Well not only will that result in reduced "service", it means layoffs for those in PS. It is utterly impossible to save even 3% without laying people off..
******

Just ask
Mike Harris
Stephen Harper
or Tim Hudak
How that works.

Then to, there's always the chance despite the "right idea's and best intentions", the cutbacks are too heavy, or in the wrong area's.
Harris went too far with his cuts in healthcare. "brain drain" was real.
That led to Mcguinty. He promised the world to PS and well, the rest is history.....
There is no arguing that the Liberals have gone nuts first hiring tons and tons of PS, then showering them "love". There are reasons Don Drummond ripped them new ones in 2010...But some of that initial hiring/love was warranted, Harris......So as much as we rip McWynne for this that and the other. We can thank Harris for it.......But if we want to blame Harris, well he had to try and fix some things after Rae.

and on, and on, and on.Its been nothing but a freak show since Rae.

And all the while, the poor working stiffs aka the middle class, which includes people in PS ( hopefully the usual stuff can be avoided) are paying for it.Getting crushed, and rarely do they get a cup of coffee. Point here is.

No-one will argue the middle class is shrinking, that the gap between haves and have nots is increasing. That if you look at trends and stats, since around 70s.

The poor are still the poor, not much has changed.
The rich are still the rich, not much has changed.
The middle class is taking it on the chin.

Who is the middle class?
Well people can decide that for themselves.

I know when I started out I had coverage as part of my pay package and then I got married and got kids I kept jobs that had the best benefits alot longer due to that even if the job stunk. ( I have examples... but it is probably not a good idea to list them). This is clearly another example of robbing from the working to pay to the supporters and rich. Sort of like Justin's taking speaking money from charities.

But let's look at the facts, several credits that benefited kids... gone, TFSA... rolled back (studies showed it was families saving for University and people retiring with packages using it most) so retirees and middle class get hit again. We know that the Conservatives created about $30B in tax credits etc that let people keep money in their pockets while still managing to balance the budget so what is the Liberals intentions and overall plan....

Let me just use my first post again....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mosquito

Federal Liberals eye tax on private health and dental plans, a move that would take in about $2.9B
http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/new...-in-about-2-9b

The employee-sponsored health care tax exemption is being scrutinized as part of a sweeping review of 150 tax credits worth about $100 billion a year in foregone federal revenue.

** Translation - goal of taking $100 billion out of Canadians pockets

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waftrudnir

i'm going to read up on what's been posted later when I have a quiet minute, sure there'll gonna be some nuggets in there.
what surprises me a bit while glancing over the posts is the level of detail
isn't the bottom line that we pay increasingly more taxes (direct and indirect) and have less disposable income, which inevitably results in decent people having less opportunities to make good choices for them and their families?
so what is good tax code in light of that?
as it seems that equalizing is the concept some consider fair, why are we not talking about a simple flat tax rate - no exceptions for anyone on anything. it's fair, predictable and very cost effective

---

Flat tax rate? I'd sure vote for that. Let's remove all tax exemptions and peg it at 10% no matter what the income level. Sounds fair to me. While we're at it,let's enact a law that no government can run a deficit and all cost over runs must be paid by the political party that did it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

Flat tax rate? I'd sure vote for that. Let's remove all tax exemptions and peg it at 10% no matter what the income level. Sounds fair to me. While we're at it,let's enact a law that no government can run a deficit and all cost over runs must be paid by the political party that did it.

---

Excellent plan!
When are you or Mosquito running?
Got my vote ;)

Mosquito:
There are always, always more than one way to look at things. It doesn't make it "right or wrong", it's just a different angle from which to approach or view the topic in question. I'm going to respond to your points with a couple points and questions. It's not about "saying" your wrong, or I'm (this angle) is right. Its about viewing things from as many angles as possible.

1) Removing child tax credits: They are nice and help families. That's important because we need to encourage people to procreate. Our birth rate is low and we are a small country. See also immigration. But now contrast the two credits.

Both will go to about 40% of the population ( actually kind of doubt 40% of the population has children under 18 but lets say its the same). Many of the child tax credits benefit those who are "better off" and can afford such things as hockey, Gymnastics, etc, etc, likely people with good paying jobs and good benefit plans already. This will help people who have less and have to pay for their own private plans. Are you suggesting kids don't need health/dental?

Two) One reason many feel a flat tax rate is the future is that Canada's tax code is insane with soooooooo many credits, deductions from income, etc, etc. It has, inarguably created different classes of people, helped widen the gap between the have's and have nots.

The more money you make, the more you are able to take advantage of various tools. There is NO arguing that the middle class is getting hammered. They are finding it extremely difficult to "live" (subjective term). I forget the exact statistic, but very very few people have much money in RSPs. Why? Well quite simply, the cost of living and taxation is leaving them with little money to save. Why do think virtually every level of government and every party is looking very hard at CPP...........

Back to persons A and B.
Both make comparable gross income. A has a pension and benefits B) doesn't.
A) Will pay off their mortgage and debt far faster, years faster
B) Will struggle
A) Will save tens of thousands in interest
B) will struggle
A) Will retire years earlier
B) Will struggle

Both have heart attacks or car accidents that see's them on LTD for 6months to a year.
A) no problem, we have money saved
B) Goes further into debt because they use a credit line to pay the bills.

What good is an RSP if you don't have money to sock away to begin with.
Then, as you go down ( or up in tax brackets) theres diminishing returns. In short a person who earns say 100,000 not only has far more disposable income, each dollar they contribute to an RSP defers far more income tax, than the same dollar contributed by someone in a lower tax bracket. And then when the money comes out its taxed as income in that calendar year. So the well off or rich pay less tax ( they are in a lower bracket now) and the middle class (pays about the same) in short, its done squat for them. Its a mechanism that by far helps the rich far more than it helps anyone in the middle class...You were saying?

Many years ago when my Mother died. She was a secretary, always in the lowest brackets. But for various reasons I won't reveal she was able to accumulate a 100,000 in and RSP. Guess what, it all comes out at once and instead of paying 25% as she did all her life, she (rather the estate) paid closer to 40%..Funny that.

TFSAs I quite agree.

In theory if we have a flat tax rate and do away with many of the credits that require an army of tax accountants and lawyers at Queens park and Ottawa to decipher. Everyone is on equal footing. The well off and rich will still pay far more in taxes helping than the middle class, because or due to all the consumer and sin taxes etc. Who pays more tax

A person that buys $100,000 Hummer or a person that buys a ford escape. Then has to fuel both both, maintain both....

A person that buys and furnishes a 3,000 square foot house or a person that buys and furnishes a 1,400 sq foot house

A person that eats at high end restaurants and pays 80 for a steak and 100 for a bottle of wine further tips 15% or a person that eats at kelsey and pays 25 for the same steak and 15 for wine...
And so on.

And because everyone is taxed the same, the rich and well off aren't trying to shelter as much ( lol, the tools they have to shelter money...it was our business btw, I've mentioned more than few times I am about legal tax avoidance). Instead, they spend more, creating jobs, helping the economy (instead of big brother and bloated civil service).

Don't get me wrong, I am no fan of taxation. but if you don't think our current code, set up, way of life doesn't heavily favour the well off and rich. I don't know what to say and the proof is in the pudding.

The middle class is getting hammered and is shrinking and gaps are widening.

not sure what to say, because most of what is relevant has already been said one way or another.
the thing that bothers me is that the truth is often not very palatable and does not necessarily promote significant change - unless you've reached the very bottom and then it becomes self-correcting - pushing the pendulum full speed in the other direction.

when I think of a flat tax, I have to think of Turkey. They tax gasoline heavily (ca. $1.50/l) - because tax evasion is so extreme and that is the only way to tax everyone somewhat equally. So, carbon tax is nothing different - except we pay taxes on everything else on top of it.

Carbon taxes will shrink the economy and fund government growth and wages. This is why the left love it as it a source of funds for public service expansion. Governments need public service union money to stay in power. It is proven to not help the environment except for the decreases size/activity of the economy. When your tank of gas rises to $100 in a Honda Civic and a Cauliflower costs you $6:00 at the grocery store it will be too late to go Hhhhmmm.

Carbon taxes:
Who burns more gas.
1) A farmer
2) A middle class family ( lets define that as any family that grosses combined $60,000 to $90,000) that lives in Rural Ontario.
3) A middle class family that lives in a big city and has public transit, and easy access to all necessities and amenities
4) A well off person ( lets define that as anyone who alone makes the combined median inc of $70,000) who lives in either 2 or 3.

Oh and who can afford $80,000 Electric cars, and that are subsidized $15,000? And where do they live?

I don't mean this as "offensive" to anyone, but as mentioned I think a great many people have lost perspective. About just who the middle class are, and what they do, don't have. You can't squeeze blood stone as the saying goes. And yet we do.

Taxation is utterly killing the middle class (imo).
And while we are all taxed very heavily ( stats show that near everyone lose more to taxation than we spend on housing, food and clothes) and I am all about legal tax reduction, spent a good 20 years in a business that helps both people and companies reduce their tax loads. Ultimately lost my job because of 5 or 6 people in Germany bending tax law and the german authorities deciding they needed to make an example of a small foreign company.....

As I said, there are certain truths or laws in this world. One is when something goes down, something else goes up. Like any teeter totter.
Since the 60s and that statistics are very clear.
The poor are still the poor. Not much has changed despite all the taxation and programs.
The rich are still the rich despite all the taxation ( and the sheer amount of ways to reduce taxes/shelter money has spawned entire industries and armies of tax lawyers, tax accountants everywhere)

The middle class is taking it on the chin, shrinking.
So whats gone up
?

Upper Income .... tax increases and removal of tax credits
Middle Income .... tax increases and removal of tax credits
Lower Income .... tax increases and removal of tax credits

The Liberals are the robbers and all brackets are the victims. As for tax credits they are intended to encourage people and companies. Clearly the Liberals don't care about children's programs, after all Justin has two tax paid nannies etc. For example the SR&ED tax credit has kept me employed on maybe 1/4 of my jobs, on several a big priority of my work has revolved around documentation. Talking to the company I was at there are two CO-OP's earning their pay because of that tax credit.... without it companies wouldn't take the risk. With a flat tax and no credits you will see the death of many charities, research and innovation and a huge impact! As for it impacting if people have more kids, that is just silly, credits just allows a better quality of life for those kids born and Trudeau kids with their nannies, baronesses, chauffeurs, trust funds etc. clearly don't give a rip.


Oh and the costs of food are already predicted to rise 5+% in the new year and funny they don't include the carbon taxes in that.

Average Canadian family to spend $420 more on food in 2017: report
http://globalnews.ca/news/3108159/av...n-2017-report/


Looking at Alberta's
Alberta's NDP government is hiding the true effects of the carbon tax, which could cost families at least $1,000 more each year, Wildrose Leader Brian Jean said Monday.

Although low- and middle-income Albertans will receive rebates on the tax when it starts Jan. 1, 2017, Jean said they still will pay up to $700 extra.
..
Jean cited data from the Canadian Tax Journal that said a $30 carbon tax will increase electricity prices by 7.5 per cent, food costs by two per cent and the shelter costs by 1.2 per cent.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...says-1.3541177

and in Ontario Wynne is even charging HST on the cap and trade tax....

Anything that let's a person or business keep a $1 in their pocket is good in my book. I remember reading a report about where $1 left in a companies pocket produced $4 in growth over time, while $1 in the gov'ts pocket ..... .70Cents in economic impact.

[COLOR=#000000][COLOR=#000000]Carbon tax is just a money grab. Canada's contributions can't make a difference in the world regarding pollution. (look at the numbers below Canada is 90) The only way to make a difference in the world is to get the big polluters to stop polluting. How do we do that? not sure, maybe we don't allow Companies to import unless the products come from green (clean) countries.

Look at it this way, the world is like a bingo hall. Everyone is welcome, the place is packed but the smoke (from smoking cigarettes) is thick.
The bingo establishment recognizes this so decides it is going to charge anyone smoking in the SW corner for smoking. Now a few of them might decided to stay/pay (too lazy to move-or just comfortable) but the majority of them will just move to the non-taxed areas. (so they don't have to pay the tax)
Will this new tax in the SW corner of the building reduce the amount of smoke in the entire place? (boarders have no walls) No it does nothing to keep the others from doing what they have been doing because there is no fee to smoke in the rest of the building.
Unless everyone in the bingo parlor gets taxed (to reduce the amount of smoking that is taking place) it will never work.

Our government is using this scare tactic (Global Warming Phrase) as a means of taking our money, not fixing the pollution problem.

Pollution Index for Country 2016

Search:

Rank	Country	Pollution Index	Exp Pollution Index
1	Egypt	96.05	174.17
2	Lebanon	91.88	165.17
3	Mongolia	90.96	167.98
4	Monaco	90.11	163.54
5	Bangladesh	88.27	158.56
6	Peru	87.91	158.18
7	Azerbaijan	87.04	155.51
8	Vietnam	86.09	153.20
9	Myanmar	85.62	156.90
10	China	85.54	155.89
11	Macedonia	85.29	156.32
12	Iran	84.21	154.11
13	Bolivia	83.14	147.86
14	Jordan	82.72	146.82
15	Cambodia	82.57	147.82
16	Bahrain	81.73	149.20
17	Nepal	81.19	143.85
18	Qatar	80.96	144.26
19	Venezuela	77.68	138.57
20	Trinidad And Tobago	77.22	136.40
21	India	77.02	135.55
22	Pakistan	76.64	134.73
23	Algeria	76.17	135.20
24	Dominican Republic	75.33	132.42
25	Malta	75.18	132.63
26	Indonesia	75.14	131.84
27	Tunisia	75.12	132.33
28	Albania	75.08	131.72
29	Philippines	73.12	127.73
30	Saudi Arabia	72.20	128.09
31	Jamaica	72.16	126.27
32	Kazakhstan	72.00	131.53
33	Thailand	71.51	124.15
34	Zimbabwe	71.20	127.72
35	Georgia	69.90	124.96
36	Ukraine	67.84	118.78
37	Malaysia	67.53	116.58
38	Chile	67.21	123.27
39	Hong Kong	67.17	121.08
40	Morocco	66.87	116.83
41	Turkey	65.75	115.18
42	Sri Lanka	65.21	113.27
43	Mexico	64.64	111.24
44	Russia	64.49	111.34
45	Colombia	64.44	117.34
46	Taiwan	63.37	110.74
47	South Africa	63.29	109.49
48	Tanzania	62.59	108.13
49	Israel	61.46	109.21
50	Brazil	61.18	104.63
51	Bulgaria	60.35	107.77
52	United Arab Emirates	59.54	102.71
53	Ecuador	59.32	100.99
54	Bahamas	58.60	100.19
55	Argentina	58.46	101.72
56	Bosnia And Herzegovina	57.95	101.63
57	Belgium	56.61	97.91
58	Italy	56.56	97.11
59	Panama	56.02	100.48
60	Serbia	55.14	94.33
61	Costa Rica	53.09	92.88
62	Puerto Rico	50.67	87.04
63	Romania	50.50	84.14
64	Poland	49.87	85.34
65	South Korea	49.65	89.02
66	Slovakia	48.43	82.59
67	Mauritius	47.38	84.65
68	Greece	47.22	79.54
69	Hungary	46.70	80.40
70	Spain	46.58	77.23
71	France	46.31	77.49
72	Libya	45.42	75.02
73	Uruguay	42.93	73.48
74	Czech Republic	42.49	72.23
75	Singapore	38.83	66.81
76	Latvia	37.14	61.99
77	United Kingdom	35.02	56.99
78	United States	34.94	60.23
79	Japan	34.04	54.90
80	Belarus	33.70	53.71
81	Cyprus	33.37	54.75
82	Netherlands	32.79	53.29
83	Portugal	31.85	51.56
84	Lithuania	30.94	51.13
85	Ireland	30.85	53.16
86	Austria	30.77	52.14
87	Croatia	30.42	49.92
88	Denmark	29.93	46.55
89	Germany	29.91	47.80
90	Canada	29.48	48.07
91	Slovenia	28.20	50.94
92	Switzerland	23.02	37.46
93	Australia	22.88	35.59
94	New Zealand	19.04	31.62
95	Sweden	18.30	29.00
96	Norway	18.21	30.05
97	Finland	17.84	30.68
98	Estonia	16.45	29.81
99	Iceland	13.10	22.98

when it comes to carbon tax, you don't even need to go into discussing its validity:
if a government (right or wrong) imposes significant fuel (or goods, sale, service, etc.) taxes to drive a certain behaviour (they consider desirable), they would need to offset the additional tax burden they introduce elsewhere (lower taxes, tax credits, exemptions etc.). otherwise, they just put a 3rd world country tax system (not intending to offend anyone here) on top of an already existing elaborate (i.e. unnecessarily complex) taxation system.

so, the simple answer - without even looking at any scientific or socioeconomic aspects (!) - is that the sole purpose of the so called carbon tax is to increase government revenue

Mosquito.
Go back to around 1950-1960. In the 60 years since. Which party or rather what political ideology has predominately "ruled". That said, not all taxes are bad, not all debt is bad, not all cuts are "good".

With respect to the middle class and the "well off".
How many people who earn (gross around the means and averages) do you think.
can find $3,000 a year for an RSP to reduce their income and save for retirement?
can find $3,000 for an RESP to reduce their income and receive up to %50 from govt?
can find $3,000 for their child to attend summer camps ( and receive a tax credit)?
can find $3,000 for much of anything.

now take a couple that gross 100k or a single person that gets 90k
not saying they to aren't getting pummelled but now all of a sudden despite not living large, and having to make choices. Finding 5-10k a year to put into an RSP ( or TFSA) or the child's RESP and reducing their tax load, saving their $ is more than doable. They may not be able to put
5,000 against their mortgage
5,000 into their retirement fund
5,000 into the kids RESPs

but they can do some of it. And those are just the obvious ones that most "real" people face and often have to choose between. I don't consider a couple that gross 100-120k to be living in luxury, but thy are far better off than the peons.

it is utterly inarguable that the middle class gets screwed. There's more I might say about other things, but for the sake of keeping it small in scope...

Just for a simple illustration. Assume nuclear families, with much the same lives. Mortgages kids, braces, 15 year old shingles or cars on their last set of wheels etc. One couple is solidly middle class, (rights around the mean and average) one couple well they to have to make choices, but maybe they bring home that extra 20-30g a year.

couple A not much spare $.
couple B manages to scrape $5,000 together. They put into an RSP so hopefully they can retire someday. It reduces their income and they get $1,500 back. They put that against the mortgage, or they put it into a TFSA where it grows tax free, even the dividends (normally taxed at 22%). That continues for the next 4 years when both their cars die and both have to find $20,000. Well couple B (assuming zero growth) has $6,000 in a TFSA for a down payment on a car and 20,000 for their future, The first couple?
credit line?

and the more or better off someone is, there are more and more and more ways to reduce income, more credits. Heck if your not quite rich but solidly better off there are all kinds of ways......

meanwhile the the poor working stiffs......

JBen

Not all taxes are bad.... but the gov't using and creating them often is, the Liberals have wasted squandered and ran up debts that the monthly interest payments are now the third largest expense of the government. Then we see them openly talking about grabbing $100B that is pure and simple economic and cultural suicide! .... not mention unless your goal is to ruin the country dumber than a bag of rocks!

As for debt, to paraphrase my dad and I concur, it ranks right in there with other 4 letter words like hell and damn. Debt makes you a slave of the lender and when you see Canada paying out billions each month to just cover the debt (even while it is at such a low rate) to take on any more is once again right up there in IQ with the rock... except these rocks are on their way to the bottom of the Laurentian Abyss. The only "good" debt is the one you no longer have and I can draw a simple comparison. A friend of mine who is a teacher bought a house the same time my wife and myself did, his mortgage is now about $30K more than he bought the house for, while ours is paid, we kept the same Honda Civic (that at one point was almost $70 to fill) for 15 years and he changes cars every 3 or 4 years etc. He right now makes about $20K more than I do but thinks there is no point in paying off any debt while the interest rates are low... both hell and debt are to be avoided. Getting rid of that mortgage payment has allowed us to put away money in a TFSA for the kids University, He has about 4 or 5 years to get the combined years plus service to get the full pension but last time I talked to him he was saying he might have to put off retiring to avoid the pay cut since there was no money saved for the kids education. Debt is a slow poison that the sooner you stop ingesting the better you will live.

Now as for the $3000 for the camp etc. ... the tax credit the Liebrals have removed was for $500 for arts and sports, about the amount it would cost to put someone in group music lessons or Timbits hockey, money that is now funding two nannies, trips to Paris for a mob etc. That simple $50 or $100 a month more in taxes for a lower income earner is the difference in food and power, for the middle it is $1,000 a year against the mortgage (which over a couple years would save them much more), for the upper bracket that extra $100 and the new tax increase are money they won't spend and stores, restaurants and places like Toronto Distillery (that thanks to ON libs is Closing in January) etc. won't get.

Regardless, personal debt in Canada is at an all time high, idiots keep digging themselves in deeper and the responsible ones are getting shot repeatedly in the feet, legs and now as* by the Liebrals and their tax increases. Grabbing another $2.9B out of people's pockets is just another example of the unmitigated contempt the Liberals have for working people.

The $2.9 billion they will grab is not to lower the debt. It's to give big raises in election years so the unions get them re-elected. So no, it's not even really being invested in infrastructure or clean energy initiatives. Fraud is what it is but the sad part is the Canadian voters buy into the boolshheet. Idiots.

Your missing the point.
which is/was our tax code does indeed steel from the poor and give to the rich. How much debt we have as a sovereign nation etc. how it's spent, or wasted, or used to pay big govt, etc etc, are separate topics. Even if the country and province had zero debt and zero waste.

our tax regime would still steal from the "poor" (the middle class) and "reward" the rich. And the further away you are from the mean, the more it does so. The more a person is able to avoid taxation and in fact, get $ back. They still pay a Boat load, but....

Personal debt.
This is way more subjective but as above. Is it any wonder why so many are going into debt? Take those last two nuclear families and their car falling apart. Neither brings home $100k. Or their roof leaking. Do the math
for the middle class roughly
43% to taxes
40% to housing/food/clothing
whats left
?

so to put that into rough numbers
A) right at 70,000
B) well say is at 90,000

by the time life gets done with them neither has much $ left. To save
or put new shingles on a roof
or pay for 2 sets of braces ( most plans only cover 1,500) and when our kids got braces it was 8000 each.
Or to replace a car.
etc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

Your missing the point.
which is/was our tax code does indeed steel from the poor and give to the rich. How much debt we have as a sovereign nation etc. how it's spent, or wasted, or used to pay big govt, etc etc, are separate topics. Even if the country and province had zero debt and zero waste.

our tax regime would still steal from the "poor" (the middle class) and "reward" the rich. And the further away you are from the mean, the more it does so. The more a person is able to avoid taxation and in fact, get $ back. They still pay a Boat load, but....

Personal debt.
This is way more subjective but as above. Is it any wonder why so many are going into debt? Take those last two nuclear families and their car falling apart. Neither brings home $100k. Or their roof leaking. Do the math
for the middle class roughly
43% to taxes
40% to housing/food/clothing
whats left
?

so to put that into rough numbers
A) right at 70,000
B) well say is at 90,000

by the time life gets done with them neither has much $ left. To save
or put new shingles on a roof
or pay for 2 sets of braces ( most plans only cover 1,500) and when our kids got braces it was 8000 each.
Or to replace a car.
etc

---

I really have an issue with your idea that it's all the fault of the "rich",that they're the EVIL ones because they have more than the rest of us,therefore,it should be OK to take from them and give it to those who don't through higher rates of taxation. "The rich" are rich because they worked hard for their money through entrepeneurship in business and commerce which afforded them better life choices with the ways and means to work towards those ends. Nobody will ever sell me on the idea that all that wealth was accumulated by theft,graft or other illegal means. If that was the case,they'd all have been jailed and assets seized,centuries ago. It's simply not true in the vast,vast majority of cases. People who espouse the idea that "the rich" don't pay taxes are sadly misinformed or just plain full of crap. Claims that "the rich" have more tax breaks than the rest of us are also dead wrong. What taxation tools are available for "the rich" are also available to everyone else,maybe to a smaller scale,but,available,none the less.
When some entity makes claims to the contrary,I ask "Where's the proof?" When they say "We should take from the rich",if you or I did that,it would be called theft,pure and simple and we get tossed in the bucket. So,what's the difference? Are we to believe that they have an obligation to give away their assets to those less fortunate? I doubt that,although,many do,to any number of philanthropic pursuits as a civic duty,much to their credit.
We as a society need to stop whining and bit**ing because someone else has been successful and achieved their lot in life and start figuring out why we haven't. It's not their fault,it's ours.

Panama papers. People that should be paying.

2008 crash did more for the reduction of Polution in canada then any of the liars.

You can tax the average people all you want. Your just putting more people out of work.

The shell game they play to confuse people works.

They don't take from the rich to help the poor. They take from the struggling middle class to give to the PS unions.

JC on a chariot driven side car. One reason I really don't post a lot anymore.

Where did I say it's
A) the fault of the rich
B) they are evil
C) or even suggest it's totally unfair?

Before judging me, did you pause to ask if I think they are taxed "too much" and as a result our tax code is a mish mash and maze of credits, deductions and more? I do believe I said, entire industries have been birthed, to find ways to reduce taxes.

TFSAs
Harper wanted to double the contribution limit from 5,000 to 10,000.
1) think I said ( I did) I quite agree and thus......
2) all else equal they are (imo) a far better choice even for the typical person than RSP (for a few reasons)

But tell me Trimmer, how many families that gross say 70,000 have 10,000 a year to hide away in them. And are getting crushed by chit.
So who do they benefit more. Especially after 10-20 years of growth.

heres another example, maybe not as good but.
commuters into the GTA can claim their travel expenses. I paid 250/month from Pickering or let's call it 3G a year for the Go Train and get a tax credit.
Can a "stiff" that drives say 200km each day do the same?

Let's say your what Ms Wynne calls Rich (I don't).
150k gross.
can probably max their RSP each year, reducing their income around 20k and good for roughly 7,000 back. which then means they can likely max their TFSA as well. Further avoiding even more taxes.

meanwhile, the middle class that is shrinking, can't save.Has politicians worried about CPP and more...

perhaps a little perspective.

oh and btw Trimmer, I've never hid the fact iid make the sunshine list. Some years, paid more in taxes than someone who might be considered middle class grossed.
Do you want to ask me if I think I'm taxed way too much?

but I also know the MC is getting bent.

JBen,they could save and they could find the $10K to stash into their RSP,then,take the refund and stash that into their TFSA if....IF....Canadians would learn to toss the credit cards,learn the difference between good debt and bad debt and live within their means. They also need to stop blaming everything else for their inability to do so.

This is way over simplified and is only for illustration.
70,000 gross of which 43% goes to govt.
39,900 left. 40% of gross (28,000) goes to housing/food/clothing.
11,900 left

my gas budget even with Go Train was 3,000 year.
Car and house Insurance another 4500 year.
more I could list, like how expensive kids are...

do you want to know why so many reach for credit cards, or use credit lines.
Wont argue some of it is "choice", but....
If you really think people have........that much disposable income to really take advantage of the many ways to reduce taxes and or save and or pay down debt...

As I said.
if I'm going to give someone a cup of coffee somehow. .

Much much earlier I asked the question. Who are the middle class? And to draw or make your own conclusions.

An interesting read.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...service=mobile

A couple of very interesting paragraphs towards the end of that.
one is the paragraph about using net worth as a metric. Is it a good barometer? Well to me no, because "net worth" is heavily affected by ones ability to accumulate assets, pay down debt. When you can take advantage of so many way to reduce taxes......many Canadians these days rely heavily on real estate for their net worth. Housing market the last 20 years? Well if one group of people in the middle class have Pensions, and another group doesn't. The ability to direct what little disposable income they have towards paying off the mortgage vs having to do both....and what if that crash finally occurs. A whole bunch of people are going to be wiped out.

another paragraph towards the end delves into a few things but to me this is the take away.

[But the sun is not shining on everyone equally. According to a recent analysisfor the University of Calgary’s School for Public Policy conducted by former Statistic Canada economists Philip Cross and Munir Sheikh, lumping middle-class factory workers together with middle-class teachers – as politicians are wont to do – “obscures the truth about which members of that group are struggling to keep up.”

By every measure – assets, income and the share of earnings – the wealthiest Canadians have done better, while those in lower income brackets have fared significantly less well. This pattern also holds true within the middle class, where the gap between the top and bottom has widened.

In fact, that 2013 internal government memo (leaked from Employment and Social Development Canada) was downright gloomy. It described a middle class that was shrinking and falling deeper into debt, and “increasingly vulnerable to financial shocks.” The “springboard to higher incomes,” the memo suggested, was losing its bounce.

financial shock meaning life.
Chit happens. Job loss, illness, legal defence, divorce, a ton of things.

as I said since the 60s.......
Won't argue "everyone" is taxed to the teeth. Won't argue the "upper middle class" or "well off" don't need and deserve all those tax breaks.

Whats been done for those a little further down the ladder/food chain?
TFSAs wonderful things and thank god Harper created them, and yup the limit should be higher. Helps the upper MC and/or WO off a lot.

People who are finding it very hard to scape a couple grand a year together?
not so much.