• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canadian Economics 101

Simpleton

New Member
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
60
Tax Cuts - A Simple Lesson In Economics

This is how the cookie crumbles. Please read it carefully. Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way Canadians pay their taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh $7.
The eighth $12.
The ninth $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."

So, now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.

So, the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six, the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share'?

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being 'PAID' to eat their dinner.

So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25%savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man "but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner (having moved to Chicago the day before), so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important.

They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in the United States, Europe and the Caribbean.
 
I'm definitely printing this one off for some of my more "socially-minded" friends. ;D
I would still like to see the flat tax brought in with no way to hide money.  I hate this percentage thing, why should the guy who works two jobs at 10 bucks an hour have to pay more percentage than the guy who works one job at 10 bucks an hour?
And of course my favourite, it looks like Mr. Martin is soon going to tax me more so that couples with two jobs can do it a lot cheaper than I who always worked OT. or a part-time second job so my wife could stay at home and raise the children the old-fashioned way, not this nouveau "raising of children by the state" thing. :mad:
 
Had this archived in the old email jokes:

>  The Ant and The Grasshopper - CLASSIC VERSION
>
>The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he's a fool, laughs and dances and plays the summer away.  Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The shivering grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.
>
>The End
>
>
>  The Ant and The Grasshopper - CANADIAN VERSION
>
>      The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.  The grasshopper thinks he is a fool, laughs and dances and plays the summer away.  Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed BUT the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others less fortunate like him are cold and starving. CBC shows up to provide live coverage of the shivering grasshopper with cuts to a video of the ant in his comfortable warm home with table filled with food.  Canadians are stunned that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so much while others have plenty.  The NDP, the CAW and the Coalition Against Poverty demonstrate in front of the ant's house.  The CBC, interrupting an Inuit Cultural Festival, special from Nunavut with break
>
>      Jack Layton rants in an interview with Pamela Wallen that the ant has gotten rich off the backs of grasshoppers, and calls for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his "fair share".  In response to polls, the Liberal Government drafts the "Economic Equity and Grasshopper Anti-Discrimination Act", retroactive to the beginning of summer. The ant's taxes are reassessed and he is also fined for failing to hire grasshopper's as helpers.  Without enough money to pay both the fine and his newly imposed retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government. The ant moves to the USA, starts a successful agribiz company with determination and no money.
>
>      The CBC later shows the now fat grasshopper finishing up the last of the ant's food though spring is still months away. The government house he is in, just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he has not maintained it.  Inadequate government funding is blamed, Roy Romanov is appointed to head a Royal Commission of enquiry that will cost the taxpayers $10,000,000.
>
>      The grasshopper is soon dead of drug overdose, the Toronto Star blames it on obvious failure of government to address the root causes of despair arising from social inequity.  The abandoned house is taken over by a gang of immigrant spiders, praised by Government for enriching Canada's multicultural diversity, who promptly terrorize the community.
>
>The End??

Actually, what's really sad is that Bastiat foresaw the problems with federally-mandated wealth redistribution over 150 years ago!!!
Have you ever heard anyone say: "Taxes are the best investment; they are a life-giving dew. See how many families they keep alive, and follow in imagination their indirect effects on industry; they are infinite, as extensive as life itself."

...

When a government official spends on his own behalf one hundred sous more, this implies that a taxpayer spends on his own behalf one hundred sous the less. But the spending of the government official is seen, because it is done; while that of the taxpayer is not seen, becauseâ ”alas!â ”he is prevented from doing it.

...

What is quite certain is that, when James Goodfellow counts out a hundred sous to the tax collector, he receives nothing in return. When, then, a government official, in spending these hundred sous, returns them to James Goodfellow, it is for an equivalent value in wheat or in labor. The final result is a loss of five francs for James Goodfellow.

...

When James Goodfellow gives a hundred sous to a government official for a really useful service, this is exactly the same as when he gives a hundred sous to a shoemaker for a pair of shoes. It's a case of give-and-take, and the score is even. But when James Goodfellow hands over a hundred sous to a government official to receive no service for it or even to be subjected to inconveniences, it is as if he were to give his money to a thief. It serves no purpose to say that the official will spend these hundred sous for the great profit of our national industry; the more the thief can do with them, the more James Goodfellow could have done with them if he had not met on his way either the extralegal or the legal parasite.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html#Chapter%201
 
It amuses me to know that when net Canadian personal income increases by X in any given year, federal and provincial governments would obtain the most personal income tax revenue if all of X was earned by the people in the highest tax bracket.  (Conversely, a government can take a staggering revenue hit if those earnings fall substantially.)  I sometimes wonder how socialists reconcile their envy of high income earners with their thirst for public revenues.
 
I sometimes wonder how socialists reconcile their envy of high income earners with their thirst for public revenues.

Through a fairytale ideological outlook that sees everyone the same in terms of capabilites and desires?
 
Another brutal one is the socialist myth that progressive taxation somehow redistributes wealth from the rich to the poor (even ignoring for the moment the perverse logic of punishing people for contributing more to society).

To wit:
Person A has a $10,000,000 inherentance and say he makes $50,000/year.  At an average 30% rate Person A pays $15,000/year in taxes into government revenues.

Person B has a $100,000 inheretance and makes $100,000 and pays taxes at an average 45% rate; $45,000 to CCRA.

Person B (the 'poor' guy) has paid 45% of his wealth in taxes, but Person A (the rich guy who's wealth is supposedly being redistributed) has only paid 1.5% of his wealth!!!

You can fiddle with the numbers as much as you want, but at the end of the day the high-income taxpayer always pays disproportionately more than the low-income individual, weath is not relevant: INCOME determines taxation (that's why we call it 'income tax') and it is INCOME that is being redistributed.  Despite the socialist rhetoric, WEALTH has no bearing and is not redistributed in any way.  The system protects accumulated wealth and is biased against new accumulation of wealth (i.e., by the poor and middle class).

Existing wealth has no bearing on taxation (in our system): progressive taxation ignores wealth while systematically descriminnating against those that generate the most new wealth.  The end result of progressive taxation is to keep the rich, rich and the poor, poor.

Anyone who is aware of this basic identitiy and says otherwise is lying (not to mention itching for a fight!).

It's no wonder the Champagne Socialists >:D particularly love progressive taxation so much: they get to keep their wealth and at the same time perpetuate the myth that they are somehow helping the poor! 
 
Existing wealth has no bearing on taxation (in our system): progressive taxation ignores wealth while systematically descriminnating against those that generate the most new wealth.

I hadn't thought of this before, but it just confirms my belief that the rich stay rich only in spite of our taxation system, the middle class will never get rich, and the poor will be subsidized no matter what. I like a lot of the 'social safety net' programs we have (but not all), but I should pay proportionally the same as every other Canadian.

Why do we reward those that contribute the least? What motivation is there for me to earn more? So I can pay more? And if I was making half what I am now, why work harder (or go to school)? Having said that, I don't agree with taxing based on accumulated/inherited wealth either.....that just seems wrong to me.

I have always liked the idea of a flat tax....it hits us all equally.
 
Caeser said:
I hadn't thought of this before, but it just confirms my belief that the rich stay rich only in spite of our taxation system, the middle class will never get rich, and the poor will be subsidized no matter what.
Not "in spite of"; "because of"


I have always liked the idea of a flat tax....it hits us all equally.
Yeah, me too, although I think a purely consumption-based tax (i.e., sales taxes only: no income taxes for individuals or businesses) would be 'fairest' and the least among evils (although very susceptible to cheating in cash-based transactions) ...
 
Not "in spite of"; "because of"

What I mean is that our taxation system should promote increased wealth, but yeah, we're splitting hairs here.

I think a purely consumption-based tax

Wasn't income tax supposed to be temporary to cover the War effort? Or is that just another urban myth?

I agree with you - tax me on what I spend, not what I save, and not what I earn, ideally, but lets start with a flat tax. I think that if this actually happened, it wouldn't be long before   we start bringing in exclusions, breaks, and other bits to bring us right back where we started. It's a slippery slope, and the left would slant the system to the poor/underprivileged/unlucky/uneducated/lazy before too long.
 
Government requires a fairly constant, or at least predictable, revenue stream.  It would first be necessary to observe gross consumption and income over time before swinging wildly one way or the other.

In a discussion of wealth one should distinguish between assets which are easily or conveniently mutable and those which are not.  An elderly person's major asset may be an owned home.  If her income doesn't support the property taxes, is "too bad, so sad, pack up and move" a satisfactory attitude on the part of the municipality or province?  Is a multigenerational family in which parents, grandparents, and children all work or contribute (eg. "Grandma's Daycare") and live in one enormous (and valuable) home wealthy?  (The home is likely to be registered in only one or two names - are those people "wealthy"?)

People are not in fact trapped as "poor", "middle class", or "rich".  Over time it is observed that most people experience income mobility.  The approximate number of people in an income range may not change much, but it is not composed of the same people from year to year.  One study in the US observed that over 10 years, just under 15% of the people who were in the lowest income quintile at the start remained there throughout.  (The people who remain in low income are not generally speaking just there because of their ill luck.)  Also, while it is truth that the North American middle classes are shrinking, it is mostly because people are moving up, not down.
 
Wow, Brad, that post was surprisingly upbeat for you.

The flat tax idea is not a new one, and I know and have considered some of the flaws as you pointed out (particularly the little old lady scenario). I am not prepared to refute all of those points, but I will ask you this:

If not the flat tax, than what would you propose to make taxation more fair to all Canadians? And hopefully less confusing and mysterious.
 
Progressive income tax without a hockey sock of exemptions and special cases would work just fine.  I would rather eliminate consumption taxes.  I prefer to see as few brakes on transactions as possible.  I believe fundamentally that the more often money changes hands, the better off everyone is.
 
Brad Sallows said:
Progressive income tax without a hockey sock of exemptions and special cases would work just fine.
Never has worked, can't see how it ever would (+ can't see any politician not making exemptions for his/herself).

I believe fundamentally that the more often money changes hands, the better off everyone is.
Only when it happens willingly! (Any taxes, because they are coercive by nature, destroy wealth)
 
The problem of the inheritance tax model is that its not the problem of a progressive income tax, it occurs in both regressive and flat income tax systems. The problem stems from the fact that Canada does not have a estate tax like countries in the world(removed by Mulrony).

And for those who use a accountant to file their taxes.
A progressive income tax system(used by almost everybody) works by differrentiating income into several brackets(16% $0-35000,22% $35001-70000,26% $70001-113804,29% >113804 at the federal level). Thus a person earning $120,000 will be paying an average 22% federal income tax rate (before other things such as capital gains/losses).

A regressive income tax system would work in the exact opposite way with the tax rate going down with every bracket, but such a system would be political suicide. However PST and GST are generally considered to be regressive.

A flat income tax system is one in which everyone is assessed the same rate regardless of income. However for it to be truly a flat-rate system it would have to do away with deductions that would change the system into a progressive or regressive system.
 
In my narrow ideological view, a transaction is an exchange; more importantly, it is informed and voluntary.  Taxation is simply confiscation, so I don't count it as "money changing hands usefully".
 
I don't really care if we retain the monarchy or not, as long as balance is restored between the branches of government. Having the PM rule like a king during his tenure is not working.

I take it we're continuing the socialism debate here as well. For all you pro-socialism types, please answer me this question: the extensive social programs you seen to favor are very expensive. Where does the money come from (please think long term in your answer)?
 
"For all you pro-socialism types, please answer me this question: the extensive social programs you seen to favor are very expensive. Where does the money come from (please think long term in your answer)?"

The progressive tax system.
 
Simply put, a progressive tax system is what currently exists.  The higher your income, the higher your tax contributions.
 
My point in bringing up taxation was this:

Social programs cost money, a lot of it, and the government gets this money through taxation. Now given the fact that social programs seem to be ever expanding (more health care, more welfare, more free education, etc), and our population growth is going down, in 3 or 4 generations, where will the money be coming from? Do you think we will be seeing 60, 70, or even 80% taxation levels? And what effect would that level of taxation have on the economy?

If you don't see this happening, then explain to me where else the money will come from?
 
Back
Top