[andyt]

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/decade+eroding+fairness/5015631/story.html

$1:

The net result is a profoundly regressive tax shift. For example, as of 2010, a household in the bottom 20 per cent of the income spectrum pays total provincial taxes of about 14 to 15 per cent of their income, a middleincome household pays a total tax rate of about 13 per cent and the wealthiest 20 per cent pay a total provincial tax rate of about 11 per cent.

Wouldn't surprise me if this was true in other jurisdictions as well.

[BartSimpson]

This is mostly weighted on sales taxes and, all things considered, rich people and poor people buy more or less the same things through the year so the poor pay a higher portion of their income in sales taxes than do wealthier people.

To resolve this disparity I'd eliminate regressive sales taxes.

[andyt]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

This is mostly weighted on sales taxes and, all things considered, rich people and poor people buy more or less the same things through the year so the poor pay a higher portion of their income in sales taxes than do wealthier people.

To resolve this disparity I'd eliminate regressive sales taxes.

Economists tell us that sales taxes, more specifically a VAT are good tho. And the list of regressive taxes includes medicare premiums, carbon taxes, etc.

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

This is mostly weighted on sales taxes and, all things considered, rich people and poor people buy more or less the same things through the year so the poor pay a higher portion of their income in sales taxes than do wealthier people.

To resolve this disparity I'd eliminate regressive sales taxes.

Economists tell us that sales taxes, more specifically a VAT are good tho. And the list of regressive taxes includes medicare premiums, carbon taxes, etc.

Then I guess you just have to accept the facts and move on because the issue, as you've illustrated here, lies in taxes that everyone has to shoulder more or less equally.

Raising the income tax on the wealthy will not do anything to improve the financial situation of people impacted by flat taxes.

[Bruce_the_vii]

If you have to introduce a surtax because of the deficit it seems the well off are doing ok and could afford it. It's political as well as taxes are basically "anybody but me".

[BeaverFever]

Also, the wealthier you are, the more ways there are to tax-shelter money. Most low-income families aren't putting money into RRSPs or TFSAs. While capital gains on investements are taxed if they are realized (ie if you sell a stock), there are ways for you to convert non-realized gains into wealth (e.g using your stock portofilo as debt collateral). Capital dividends are non-taxable income, etc. The laws clearly provide advantage to the more wealthy individuals.

[BartSimpson]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Most low-income families aren't putting money into RRSPs or TFSAs.

Which is part of why they're not wealthy.

Good financial habits are universal and are not limited to those with stock brokers or big incomes.

Mrs. Bart's father died in April and left behind just north of four million dollars for his wife and he did so on the income of a journeyman glazier. He's not all that unusual.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/st ... naire.html

When Mrs. Bart and I married in 1987 I was making a whopping $950 per month and we still saved up for the downpayment on the house we paid off in August 2009.

We've had a couple good years with income and we've been sure to save the windfalls because we knew they would not last.

Consequently our net worth broke seven figures a few years ago and we're looking at a comfortable retirement.

It isn't rocket science in the least.

You just spend less than you make. Period.

Anyone saying that's impossible needs to look at what they spend their money on. Cut out the cable TV, the cell phones, the movies, the restaurants, the hockey games, and it's amazing how much money you could be saving. No matter what your income is, even if you're on assistance, there's always something you could squirrel away and, over time, that amount can become significant so long as you don't spend it at the first temptation.

You're basically trading instant gratification for delayed gratification.

[BeaverFever]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Which is part of why they're not wealthy.

Good financial habits are universal and are not limited to those with stock brokers or big incomes.

Mrs. Bart's father died in April and left behind just north of four million dollars for his wife and he did so on the income of a journeyman glazier. He's not all that unusual.

So I bet you 10:1 that he was a member of a Trade Union. I have a very close friend in a Glazier's union (IUPAT). Do you rally think Mrs. Barts' dad didn't regognize that fact? Do you think he would have anything near that amount without a trade union? Have you not been on here harping about how unionized workers are overpaid and deserve less??

$1:

When Mrs. Bart and I married in 1987 I was making a whopping $950 per month and we still saved up for the downpayment on the house we paid off in August 2009.

Guarantee thats A-typical, especially post-meltdwon. How much did you put down?

$1:

We've had a couple good years with income and we've been sure to save the windfalls because we knew they would not last.

Some people never get enough "couple of good years" to make up for the many many bad years.

$1:

Anyone saying that's impossible needs to look at what they spend their money on. Cut out the cable TV, the cell phones, the movies, the restaurants, the hockey games, and it's amazing how much money you could be saving

.

True, but I think for you, it's amazing how little some hard-working people are making. Many of these ppl dont have any of things u are taliking about.

$1:

No matter what your income is, even if you're on assistance, there's always something you could squirrel away

Sadly, total bullshit.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Bart Bart:

even if you're on assistance, there's always something you could squirrel away and, over time,

Funny you should mention that. In 1987, you mentioned you made $950/mo. That's what a single person in Ontario gets for disability today, provided they are under 65.
After rent(unless you live in the middle of nowhere), phone and food, there's really nothing left to squirrel away. Also, you can only have so much in assets on disability. So again, as a single person on disability, let's say that beyond all odds you actually manage to squirrel away $5,000, anything you save after that will be reflected in a reduced disability cheque.