Canadian $ = $1.04 Us.

[FirstSunday33ad]

And Climbing.....

[Darth Executor]

I have no doubt Canadian companies are making a killing from buying American producs and selling them for way more up here. *sigh*

I need to get a steady, reliable income up so I can just buy stuff straight from the USA instead of relying on the crooks here.

[Storico]

A lot of Canadians are enthusiastic about our dollar being strong right now, and many tend to think it's awesome that we can be all smug about how ours is currently worth more than the American dollar. I don't see it that way. Take Darth E for example. He wants to buy American. And why shouldn't he? The prices are pretty darned reasonable right now. A really, really strong Canadian dollar encourages Canadians to buy American products, but it DOESN'T encourage Canadians to buy their own products, nor does it encourage the US to buy Canadian goods. The only way it would work out for us is if all the Canadian run stores dropped their prices to reflect the currently strong dollar and in order to keep business here and out of the USA, but I don't see that happening, so far. It can't be benefitting us in the long run, up here. I don't think this will last for the long run, though. I think our dollar will probably enjoy a short and memorable stint that high, and when the US economy balances, we'll slide back below par again. And I don't see that as a really, really bad thing.

I probably just lost a lot of enthusiasm from people here who are going "woohoooooo, strong dollar!" but.... meh. :shrug:

[mossrose]

I have some enthusiam for the strong Canadian dollar because I remember, some 30-something years ago, when it was this strong.

I also don't buy into the gloom and doom about the effect on the Canadian economy because of the stronger dollar. The economy was pretty good 30-some years ago when the dollar was strong. And it worsened when the dollar devalued with the Liberal workings of the time.

I certainly enjoyed our trip to the States this past month, when the dollar was just hitting par. How nice to know that stuff we bought was worth pretty much the same in Canadian or US when we bought it..........except for gasoline, which is STILL a huge bargain down there compared to here!

But, I agree with you, Stori. I don't think it will last, and the looney will slide below par again. However, I am going to enjoy it while it lasts.

[Gabby]

The "prices" for a lot of things here in Calgary are starting to drop. Mind you I think Calgary has overly inflated prices compared to other cities in Canada. But you have to keep in mind that the things in the stores now were not just purchased by them yesterday but months ago when the dollar wasn't as strong. So the price adjustments for the stronger dollar will only come slowly and gradually.

[mossrose]

I have heard people complain about how the prices of things are not dropping, like books, and we've all heard the big whining about car prices.

Of course it takes time for the older stock to be depleted, and then hopefully the merchants will be able to offer lower prices.

What really upset me was, I think it was last Sunday morning, (or it might have been 2 weeks ago........), the newsperson announced that Canadians travelling to the States had best take US cash, because some places were only offering .60 on the dollar!

I was appalled! It hasn't been that low for at least 5 years! And at the time of the announcement, it was at least par!

Too bad they didn't tell us where in the States that was going on. I would be sure to avoid that area next time..

:noid:

[TCapp]

Is the loonie actually going up, or is the weak dollar just going down some more. What's its actual face value these days, anyway? Three cents? Gonna be a blast when the Amero takes over.

[Storico]

Yeah, I'll definitely try and enjoy it while it lasts. So far, I believe there have only been a few stores here to actually lower prices, so I haven't noticed a difference yet. I walked into a bookstore to get a book the other day, and there was only an American price on the cover... so the girl rang it up at a more expensive Canadian price. When I asked her why (it was over seven dollars more!) she said it was because she was told to, and had to, and it was likely that the dollar wouldn't hold out that long anyway. :ahem: I asked if she'd ring it up at the American price, and she said she didn't have the 'authorization yet' to do so, so I decided against getting it. :shrug:

Maybe when they figure out the balancing act here it'll get better. I know it's petty to whine about little things like that. It just surprised me. I guess everyone's probably feeling the pressure to drop a few prices, and overinflated places like Chapters aren't very happy about it at the moment.

[Gabby]

Is the loonie actually going up, or is the weak dollar just going down some more. What's its actual face value these days, anyway? Three cents? Gonna be a blast when the Amero takes over.

I think it's a combination of both. The last 6 months the Canadian dollar seems to be strengthening when you chart it out. The American dollar has been struggling too though.

[Darth Executor]

Yeah, I'll definitely try and enjoy it while it lasts. So far, I believe there have only been a few stores here to actually lower prices, so I haven't noticed a difference yet. I walked into a bookstore to get a book the other day, and there was only an American price on the cover... so the girl rang it up at a more expensive Canadian price. When I asked her why (it was over seven dollars more!) she said it was because she was told to, and had to, and it was likely that the dollar wouldn't hold out that long anyway. :ahem: I asked if she'd ring it up at the American price, and she said she didn't have the 'authorization yet' to do so, so I decided against getting it. :shrug:

Maybe when they figure out the balancing act here it'll get better. I know it's petty to whine about little things like that. It just surprised me. I guess everyone's probably feeling the pressure to drop a few prices, and overinflated places like Chapters aren't very happy about it at the moment.

An Indigo near me put up a sign explaining why their books aren't cheaper yet: they're always sold at the printed price, and we have to wait for newer editions and books to get a cheaper price. They also said they're not making a huge profit out of the deal since they have to buy expensive books anyway. It's the american publishers' who are winning in this deal. Of course, there are other items that don't have this excuse (like videogames).

[Teallaura]

What's an Indigo? Is that a particular chain?

[mossrose]

Chapters book store.

[FirstSunday33ad]

Historic Rise: Canadian Dollar reaches all time high of $107.17 US.

Experts expect climb to continue unless government cuts interest rates. Government unwilling to do this as it will heat up an already red-hot economy, increasing dangers of inflation.

Canadian economy enjoying benefit of years of tight spending and taxation. Deficit elimination has resulted in drastic decline in National Debt meaning lower interest payments. By not implementing tax cuts during the rebuilding years, Canada has become an economic power house.

Change for the worst expected however, as Conservative government plans massive tax windfall to wealthy eliminating incentives to invest in economy while doing nothing to build, repair or improve infrustructure, education, transit or cities. A return to deficit spending therefore likely with a resulting decline in Canadian Dollar.

Only going to show; Neo-cons should not be allowed anywhere near a national economy.

[Philosophickle]

Goes to show that the govt. shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a national economy.

[JusticeMachine]

And Climbing.....

Lousy Canadian Capitalist. I bet you, being a socialist, is appauled.

[mossrose]

Historic Rise: Canadian Dollar reaches all time high of $107.17 US.

Experts expect climb to continue unless government cuts interest rates. Government unwilling to do this as it will heat up an already red-hot economy, increasing dangers of inflation.

Canadian economy enjoying benefit of years of tight spending and taxation. Deficit elimination has resulted in drastic decline in National Debt meaning lower interest payments. By not implementing tax cuts during the rebuilding years, Canada has become an economic power house.

Change for the worst expected however, as Conservative government plans massive tax windfall to wealthy eliminating incentives to invest in economy while doing nothing to build, repair or improve infrustructure, education, transit or cities. A return to deficit spending therefore likely with a resulting decline in Canadian Dollar.

Only going to show; Neo-cons should not be allowed anywhere near a national economy.
Do you have a link for some of this information?

Because I heard a financial analyst saying at noon today that the Bank of Canada plans on increasing interest rates, not lowering them.

And there are going to be tax cuts, one of them the hated GST, which the Conservative government already cut a year and a half ago from 7% to 6%, and as of January 01, it will be cut again, to 5%.

How is that bad?

I don't have information about the other tax cuts, but they are supposed to be across the board, so singling out "tax cuts to the wealthy" doesn't seem fair.

[Timothy Leary]

Or better yet, a reason to go back to the gold standard.

that being said, i heard an economist on NPR saying that the dollar is falling partly in reaction to our large trade deficit, and all my stocks (which are on Paris Exchange companies) are in euros, so I'm not complaining :hehe:

[FirstSunday33ad]

Do you have a link for some of this information?

Because I heard a financial analyst saying at noon today that the Bank of Canada plans on increasing interest rates, not lowering them.

And there are going to be tax cuts, one of them the hated GST, which the Conservative government already cut a year and a half ago from 7% to 6%, and as of January 01, it will be cut again, to 5%.

How is that bad?

I don't have information about the other tax cuts, but they are supposed to be across the board, so singling out "tax cuts to the wealthy" doesn't seem fair.

Q: And there are going to be tax cuts, one of them the hated GST, which the Conservative government already cut a year and a half ago from 7% to 6%, and as of January 01, it will be cut again, to 5%.

A: Change for the worst expected however, as Conservative government plans massive tax windfall to wealthy .

Q: How is that bad?

A: eliminating incentives to invest in economy while doing nothing to build, repair or improve infrustructure, education, transit or cities. A return to deficit spending therefore likely with a resulting decline in Canadian Dollar

Q: I don't have information about the other tax cuts, but they are supposed to be across the board, so singling out "tax cuts to the wealthy" doesn't seem fair.

A: "Tax Cuts across the board" always benefit the weathiest more than the middle class or poor simply because they have the most tax to cut. Example: The poor pay little to nothing in tax due to the fact that they have little to no income. The middle class pay the vast majority of tax yet fall into the bracket that gets the smallest cut - the $50K to $90K bracket for a family of four. But those earning above the $90K bracket enjoy a greater return the higher up the bracket they go.

An example is your "GST cut" to 5%. Since the majority of goods purchased by the poor and middle class are GST exempt this savings is meaningless to them. A middle class family of four for example saves on average about $20.00 per year. However, purchases routinely made by the wealthiest (cars, boats, vacations, monster homes, etc) are not GST exempt - therefore they enjoy the most from the cuts.

[SteveF]

It's also $2 to the pound at the moment, quite possibly for the first time ever.

[Teallaura]

Notice how proportional taxes are fine until the benefit by proportion goes to the wealthy. Bigotry, anyone?

[mossrose]

An example is your "GST cut" to 5%. Since the majority of goods purchased by the poor and middle class are GST exempt this savings is meaningless to them. A middle class family of four for example saves on average about $20.00 per year. However, purchases routinely made by the wealthiest (cars, boats, vacations, monster homes, etc) are not GST exempt - therefore they enjoy the most from the cuts.

What?

I am middle class. We have a household income of about $40,000. We pay GST on everything except food items and prescriptions.

I buy cars, and vacations, and renovations on my sizeable home, and I pay GST on all of that stuff.

I buy new tv's and dvd players and dvd's and exercise equipment and computers and cat food and vet services for my cat and new clothes and furniture, and I pay GST on all that stuff.

I buy gasoline for my cars (3 in my household). I buy natural gas and electricity and water and telephone and internet service and cable and sewer/garbage disposal for my home and pay GST on all that stuff.

I buy fabric for quilting, and sewing machines and sergers and crafting items and I pay GST on all that stuff.

If I smoked (which I don't) or drank alcohol (which I don't) I would buy cigarettes and booze and I would GST on all that stuff.

I eat out at restaurants and fast food places and I pay GST on that stuff.

Food items from the grocery store that you are going to take home and prepare yourself and prescription items and medical services are about the only things that I don't pay GST on.

I pay GST on toilet paper, surely a necessity, not a luxury. I pay GST on feminine protection items, surely a necessity, not a luxury. And gasoline! In Alberta! NOT a luxury item, but a necessity!

And everybody pays the GST on all that stuff, including the poor and middle class.

Of course, if it were true that the "poor and middle class" didn't ever purchase big ticket items, as you say, well, they would still be ahead because they wouldn't be shelling out the cost of the item initially, never mind the tax, wouldn't they?

So you are totally out to lunch. Where, of course, you would have to pay GST.

[jonah bear]

I think it is the U.S. Dollar weakening and not our (Canadian) dollar strengthening.

The Cdn $ is actually losing against most other major world currencies (especially Asia). It's just not falling as quickly as the US$.

I think we will see a par or close-to-par value on our currencies for the foreseeable future. The economies are closely pegged and, IMO, the U.S. premium previously carried was on the perceived strength of its economy over Canada. With soaring trade deficits in the U.S. and surpluses in Canada, the scales have tipped but only to the extent that investors recognize the trade imbalances between the 2 countries. They should not place a strong premium on the loonie over the US dollar as our economy is highly dependent upon the US economy.

[FirstSunday33ad]

What?

I am middle class. We have a household income of about $40,000. We pay GST on everything except food items and prescriptions.

Which is what low income persons also primarily purchase. Therefore a GST reduction is meaningless on these items.

I buy cars, and vacations, and renovations on my sizeable home, and I pay GST on all of that stuff.

I buy new tv's and dvd players and dvd's and exercise equipment and computers and cat food and vet services for my cat and new clothes and furniture, and I pay GST on all that stuff.

I buy gasoline for my cars (3 in my household). I buy natural gas and electricity and water and telephone and internet service and cable and sewer/garbage disposal for my home and pay GST on all that stuff.

I buy fabric for quilting, and sewing machines and sergers and crafting items and I pay GST on all that stuff.

If I smoked (which I don't) or drank alcohol (which I don't) I would buy cigarettes and booze and I would GST on all that stuff.

I eat out at restaurants and fast food places and I pay GST on that stuff.

You clearly live in a part of the country where $40,000 a year puts you in the upper income bracket since $40k for a family could not begin to purchase half of what you have described. Assuming you are including all of your income and are not living on debt, you could not possibly afford your lifestyle if you lived in a major city such as Vancouver, Toronto or Montreal.

All of the things you have mentioned are not purchased – or if they are, they are purchased in smaller quantities (3 cars??) (NEW TV and DVD??) (FURNITURE??) by the average Canadian family.

Food items from the grocery store that you are going to take home and prepare yourself and prescription items and medical services are about the only things that I don't pay GST on.

I pay GST on toilet paper, surely a necessity, not a luxury. I pay GST on feminine protection items, surely a necessity, not a luxury. And gasoline! In Alberta! NOT a luxury item, but a necessity!

And everybody pays the GST on all that stuff, including the poor and middle class.

Again, the expenses of each of the items you mention are so small as to make a GST reduction meaningless. Toilet paper for example costs $5.00 for quality and quantity. This translates into a savings of .10 cents per purchase.

And you mention that you live in Alberta; so your average cost of living is already lower as are the costs of home ownership. However, it is also a far more brutal place to live if you are in a low income bracket or poor. Again, making a GST reduction pointless.

Of course, if it were true that the "poor and middle class" didn't ever purchase big ticket items, as you say, well, they would still be ahead because they wouldn't be shelling out the cost of the item initially, never mind the tax, wouldn't they?

So you are totally out to lunch. Where, of course, you would have to pay GST

I didn’t say that they “didn’t ever purchase big ticket items”. However, let’s look at that. An upper income earner can afford to purchase a luxury car. Assume that the price of this car is $100,000. A GST reduction from 7% to 5% saves him $2,000.00. A middle income earner, however, can not afford a luxury car. They purchase for reliability and cost spending on average $30,000 for a new vehicle. This is a savings of $600.00. Now the upper income earner is also more likely to purchase his vehicle up front and is unlikely to have to finance it. A middle income earner however more likely has to spread the term over a 60 month period, meaning a savings of $10.00 per month is enjoyed, but lost due to interest on the loan.

Again, the GST reduction is meaningless.

[mossrose]

Which is what low income persons also primarily purchase. Therefore a GST reduction is meaningless on these items.

I'm sorry, I don't understand. "Rich" or "poor", the non-GST on food and prescriptions is the same. You can't use the few items without GST added on as an example of "meaningless reduction".

And btw, a lot of "low income persons" buy a lot of cigarettes and alcohol. They pay GST on those items.



You clearly live in a part of the country where $40,000 a year puts you in the upper income bracket since $40k for a family could not begin to purchase half of what you have described. Assuming you are including all of your income and are not living on debt, you could not possibly afford your lifestyle if you lived in a major city such as Vancouver, Toronto or Montreal.

$40,000 in Alberta is considered lower middle class. And the cost of living in Alberta in the past couple of years has skyrocketed because of the booming economy. Rent in Edmonton for a 2 bedroom apartment is pushing $1000/month right now because of a low vacancy rate. A 3 bedroom apartment is over $1100.

http://www.cbre.ca/NR/rdonlyres/0CFDC8A3-0624-4381-A1E0-3A044657699D/0/edmonton2q06apt.pdf

http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/story.html?id=29dcabf5-84af-4b1a-bdd4-fbddc2093130&k=61519

All of the things you have mentioned are not purchased – or if they are, they are purchased in smaller quantities (3 cars??) (NEW TV and DVD??) (FURNITURE??) by the average Canadian family.

What do you mean, "not purchased"? Are you suggesting that someone GAVE us our vehicles? There are 3 people who live in my house. 2 of them work outside the home. My son owns his own car, which he paid cash for, by the way. My husband and I own our 2 vehicles, which we paid cash for, by the way. 2 of the 3 vehicles are used, not new, and we paid GST on the purchase, as well as GST on the upkeep.

I pay natural gas, electricity, cable, sewer/water/garbage, telephone bills EVERY month! What do you mean those items are not purchased? I regularly purchase quilt fabric or crafting supplies. Nobody gives those to me. I bought a serger a year ago. My sewing machine is 5 years old. Nobody gave them to me.

We purchase gasoline for our vehicles, my husband at least twice a week, because he works 40 miles from home, one way. Nobody gives us gasoline. Etc. and so on. We purchase stuff. Do you get your stuff given to you?

We have, in the past 2 years, purchased 3 new queen size beds, which we paid cash for. We are in the process of looking for a new tv and a new surround sound system, which we will put on our credit card, but we pay off our credit card bill in total every single month, and have since we married 35 years ago.

Our living room furniture is 28 years old. We will be looking to purchase new furniture in the near future, which we will put on our credit card and then pay off when the bill arrives.

In the past 2 years we have replaced kitchen, livingroom, dining room, hall and bathroom floors. We have painted those rooms, and totally redone the bathroom. We painted our guest bedroom, and I made new curtains for that room. Just in October of this year, we replaced all our upstairs doors with new ones, including the frames. And we installed about 350 feet of headers, casings and baseboards. All of this was done on credit, which we paid off immediately when the bill arrived.



Again, the expenses of each of the items you mention are so small as to make a GST reduction meaningless. Toilet paper for example costs $5.00 for quality and quantity. This translates into a savings of .10 cents per purchase.

The last time I bought a package of 12 rolls of toilet paper I paid $8.99. Plus GST. That was not even for the best quality. Add to that household cleaning supplies and other non-food items. The GST certainly adds up over a year.

And you mention that you live in Alberta; so your average cost of living is already lower as are the costs of home ownership. However, it is also a far more brutal place to live if you are in a low income bracket or poor. Again, making a GST reduction pointless.

Please see my point above about the cost of living in Alberta.

A house down the street from mine, built around the same time as mine was, in 1976, sold for $499,000 in September of this year. It is about the same size as mine, around 1200 square feet.

The cost of buying a home in Alberta right now is astronomical. You really shouldn't talk about things you obviously know nothing about.




I didn’t say that they “didn’t ever purchase big ticket items”. However, let’s look at that. An upper income earner can afford to purchase a luxury car. Assume that the price of this car is $100,000. A GST reduction from 7% to 5% saves him $2,000.00. A middle income earner, however, can not afford a luxury car. They purchase for reliability and cost spending on average $30,000 for a new vehicle. This is a savings of $600.00. Now the upper income earner is also more likely to purchase his vehicle up front and is unlikely to have to finance it. A middle income earner however more likely has to spread the term over a 60 month period, meaning a savings of $10.00 per month is enjoyed, but lost due to interest on the loan.

Again, the GST reduction is meaningless.

Just because a person can afford to buy a luxury vehicle or a monster house doesn't mean they do. I have a Honda Accord. A really decent car, not luxury, but close, and in very good condition. I bought it second hand. And did I mention that I paid cash for it? Not everything has to be purchased new.

We are careful with our money. Just in case you didn't notice. And I object to giving the government any more than I have to. Another 1% off the GST is more of MY money in MY pocket, and that is a good thing, regardless of how little it is.

[Crow]

Here's a cool way to settle it. FirstSunday33ad, give Mossy 2% of the cost of everything she buys that is subject to the GST. Then she can tell you if that savings is helpful or not. And you can tell us if paying it out is insignificant.

[FirstSunday33ad]

Here's a cool way to settle it. FirstSunday33ad, give Mossy 2% of the cost of everything she buys that is subject to the GST. Then she can tell you if that savings is helpful or not. And you can tell us if paying it out is insignificant.

Actually, there is no need for me to do this since the Neo-Cons are doing it for me. They are taking money out of my pocket and giving it to people who don't need it. They are paying off their friends with the money of the working class.

[Crow]

Actually, there is no need for me to do this since the Neo-Cons are doing it for me. They are taking money out of my pocket and giving it to people who don't need it. They are paying off their friends with the money of the working class.

So can we safely say that that a reduction of of Mossy's GST rate, from 7% to 5%, would be a significant amount of savings for her?

:lmbo:

[Darth Executor]

Actually, there is no need for me to do this since the Neo-Cons are doing it for me. They are taking money out of my pocket and giving it to people who don't need it. They are paying off their friends with the money of the working class.

What the hell are you talking about? How is that YOUR money? A tax reduction means they don't take money, period. You are not entitled to somebody else's earnings just because you're not competent enough to make your own.

[FirstSunday33ad]

I'm sorry, I don't understand. "Rich" or "poor", the non-GST on food and prescriptions is the same. You can't use the few items without GST added on as an example of "meaningless reduction".

And btw, a lot of "low income persons" buy a lot of cigarettes and alcohol. They pay GST on those items.

Okay, let's take alcohol and cigarettes. This is a favourite right-wing boogyman. The poor apparently spend all their incomes on both.

The price of a pack of cigarettes is $7.50. GST at 7% adds .53 cents to the purchase. GST at 5% adds .38 cents (rounded). So your poor chain smoker pockets a total of .15 cents per pack of cigarettes.

Alcohol. The price of a two-four is about $35.00 a case. Add $2.45 at 7% or $1.75 at 5%. Our beerswilling, chain smoking person now saves a whopping total of .85 cents.

$40,000 in Alberta is considered lower middle class. And the cost of living in Alberta in the past couple of years has skyrocketed because of the booming economy. Rent in Edmonton for a 2 bedroom apartment is pushing $1000/month right now because of a low vacancy rate. A 3 bedroom apartment is over $1100.

http://www.cbre.ca/NR/rdonlyres/0CFDC8A3-0624-4381-A1E0-3A044657699D/0/edmonton2q06apt.pdf

http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/story.html?id=29dcabf5-84af-4b1a-bdd4-fbddc2093130&k=61519

IOW - in booming Edmonton, the poor are getting poorer as they have to shell out more of their income in rent.


What do you mean, "not purchased"? Are you suggesting that someone GAVE us our vehicles? There are 3 people who live in my house. 2 of them work outside the home. My son owns his own car, which he paid cash for, by the way. My husband and I own our 2 vehicles, which we paid cash for, by the way. 2 of the 3 vehicles are used, not new, and we paid GST on the purchase, as well as GST on the upkeep.

I pay natural gas, electricity, cable, sewer/water/garbage, telephone bills EVERY month! What do you mean those items are not purchased? I regularly purchase quilt fabric or crafting supplies. Nobody gives those to me. I bought a serger a year ago. My sewing machine is 5 years old. Nobody gave them to me.

We purchase gasoline for our vehicles, my husband at least twice a week, because he works 40 miles from home, one way. Nobody gives us gasoline. Etc. and so on. We purchase stuff. Do you get your stuff given to you?

We have, in the past 2 years, purchased 3 new queen size beds, which we paid cash for. We are in the process of looking for a new tv and a new surround sound system, which we will put on our credit card, but we pay off our credit card bill in total every single month, and have since we married 35 years ago.

Our living room furniture is 28 years old. We will be looking to purchase new furniture in the near future, which we will put on our credit card and then pay off when the bill arrives.

In the past 2 years we have replaced kitchen, livingroom, dining room, hall and bathroom floors. We have painted those rooms, and totally redone the bathroom. We painted our guest bedroom, and I made new curtains for that room. Just in October of this year, we replaced all our upstairs doors with new ones, including the frames. And we installed about 350 feet of headers, casings and baseboards. All of this was done on credit, which we paid off immediately when the bill arrived.[quote]

Firstly: "not purchased" - the average Canadian family cannot afford the standard of living you mention and therefore do not purchase the items you listed. I did not mean to imply that they were given to you.

Secondly: Appreciate the fact that you enjoy a higher than average standard of living. As such, you naturally enjoy a greater benefit from the GST reduction than the average family or poor family.

[quote]The last time I bought a package of 12 rolls of toilet paper I paid $8.99. Plus GST. That was not even for the best quality. Add to that household cleaning supplies and other non-food items. The GST certainly adds up over a year.

You got taken. Try shopping in another store or switch brands.

BTW - the GST reduction will save you an amazing .18 cents.

A house down the street from mine, built around the same time as mine was, in 1976, sold for $499,000 in September of this year. It is about the same size as mine, around 1200 square feet.

The cost of buying a home in Alberta right now is astronomical. You really shouldn't talk about things you obviously know nothing about.

I know and can guarantee that you did not pay anything NEAR $499,000 for a 1200 sq ft home in Edmonton. Admit that you bought your house decades ago for a 10th of that price.

Simple math makes a mortgage on a $499,000 home with a take home income of $40,000 a year impossible to manage. You would have to earn at least $100k a year before you could be considered for a mortgage of that size (assuming you have 10% down.).

Just because a person can afford to buy a luxury vehicle or a monster house doesn't mean they do. I have a Honda Accord. A really decent car, not luxury, but close, and in very good condition. I bought it second hand. And did I mention that I paid cash for it? Not everything has to be purchased new.

You are missing the point. A GST reduction does more to benefit the people who need it the least and does the least to benefit the people who need it the most. A better use of the money would be to reinvest in cities, rebuild infrastructure, fund public transit, public schools or healthcare. Funding daycare programs, cleaning up the environment or just paying down the national debt makes more sense than making overpriced goodies more affordable.


We are careful with our money. Just in case you didn't notice. And I object to giving the government any more than I have to. Another 1% off the GST is more of MY money in MY pocket, and that is a good thing, regardless of how little it is.

The thing that I object to is seeing tax dollars I have paid to keep my country running in a civilized, modern fashion being shoveled to the wealthy who use it to buy new toys. I would rather the 2% of the GST be used to build new hospitals, pay for more doctors, build another rail transit line, fund some more daycare spots, than be used to bribe voters to support a neo-con government with no vision.

[FirstSunday33ad]

What the hell are you talking about? How is that YOUR money? A tax reduction means they don't take money, period. You are not entitled to somebody else's earnings just because you're not competent enough to make your own.

There are not reducing my taxes at all - that is the entire point. A cut in a sales tax that already exempts most of the items that I already purchase, but not on items that I can not afford, is not a "cut" to my taxes at all.

However, that tax did pay for services that I did use. Now however, it becomes necessary for me to pay "market prices" for goods that used to be a public service. Now I have to pay more of my already shrinking income on goods and services that used to be covered by taxes.

Money out of my pocket and into the pockets of the wealthy.

[Crow]

There are not reducing my taxes at all - that is the entire point. A cut in a sales tax that already exempts most of the items that I already purchase, but not on items that I can not afford, is not a "cut" to my taxes at all.

However, that tax did pay for services that I did use. Now however, it becomes necessary for me to pay "market prices" for goods that used to be a public service. Now I have to pay more of my already shrinking income on goods and services that used to be covered by taxes.

Money out of my pocket and into the pockets of the wealthy.

If, as you say, the wealthy are paying more because you can't afford to buy non-taxable items and they buy numerous high ticket items and therefore put more into the pot, then it appears that you are the freeloader taking money out of the pockets of the wealthy, not the other way around.

[FirstSunday33ad]

If, as you say, the wealthy are paying more because you can't afford to buy non-taxable items and they buy numerous high ticket items and therefore put more into the pot, then it appears that you are the freeloader taking money out of the pockets of the wealthy, not the other way around.

Dude, that makes no sense at all.

Try again and this time read over what you have witten.

[Crow]

OK, let's see.

You pay very little in taxes.

Rich people pay a lot in taxes.

You say that the money is going out of your pocket and to the wealthy, even though it appears that the great majority of your money goes to......you.

[Darth Executor]

There are not reducing my taxes at all - that is the entire point. A cut in a sales tax that already exempts most of the items that I already purchase, but not on items that I can not afford, is not a "cut" to my taxes at all.

However, that tax did pay for services that I did use. Now however, it becomes necessary for me to pay "market prices" for goods that used to be a public service. Now I have to pay more of my already shrinking income on goods and services that used to be covered by taxes.

Money out of my pocket and into the pockets of the wealthy.


Taxes don't grow on trees. That money originally came out of somebody's pocket. That person now gets to keep more of THEIR money. This isn't you losing money, it's you not getting to freeload off somebody else's money.

[Bill the Cat]

Dear Lord... look in the dictionary under socialist and it says "Read this thread".

How DARE you try to make something of yourself! If you DARE get rich, we are going to TAX your pants off just so those who are not as fortunate as you can avoid having to pay anything for the exact same services you use. Why is their burden more than yours? What evil did they commit that they now have to pay theirs AND yours?

[Darth Executor]

Dear Lord... look in the dictionary under socialist and it says "Read this thread".

How DARE you try to make something of yourself! If you DARE get rich, we are going to TAX your pants off just so those who are not as fortunate as you can avoid having to pay anything for the exact same services you use. Why is their burden more than yours? What evil did they commit that they now have to pay theirs AND yours?

They STOLE the money off the hard working population! Nevermind fraud and theft laws made to prevent dishonest gain, if you're rich you MUST be a crook because there's no way a honest man can get rich.

[Crow]

Dear Lord... look in the dictionary under socialist and it says "Read this thread".



How DARE you try to make something of yourself! If you DARE get rich, we are going to TAX your pants off just so those who are not as fortunate as you can avoid having to pay anything for the exact same services you use. Why is their burden more than yours? What evil did they commit that they now have to pay theirs AND yours?




Or, "If you don't give me as much of your money as I want, you're stealing from me."

[mossrose]

Okay, let's take alcohol and cigarettes. This is a favourite right-wing boogyman. The poor apparently spend all their incomes on both.

The price of a pack of cigarettes is $7.50. GST at 7% adds .53 cents to the purchase. GST at 5% adds .38 cents (rounded). So your poor chain smoker pockets a total of .15 cents per pack of cigarettes.

Alcohol. The price of a two-four is about $35.00 a case. Add $2.45 at 7% or $1.75 at 5%. Our beerswilling, chain smoking person now saves a whopping total of .85 cents.

And if anybody quits smoking and drinking, they will save a whopping lot more.



IOW - in booming Edmonton, the poor are getting poorer as they have to shell out more of their income in rent.

That is an invalid point. There is no GST on rent, anyway.



Firstly: "not purchased" - the average Canadian family cannot afford the standard of living you mention and therefore do not purchase the items you listed. I did not mean to imply that they were given to you.

My family IS an average Canadian family. And "rich" or "poor", when a person buys a bag of chips, the GST is the same! Or when I pay for utilities for my home, and my neighbour who makes $40,000 a year more than I do pays for his utilities, the GST is the same!

Secondly: Appreciate the fact that you enjoy a higher than average standard of living. As such, you naturally enjoy a greater benefit from the GST reduction than the average family or poor family.

My family IS an average Canadian family! We are, and always have been, careful with our money. And have taught our children to be careful with their money and stay out of debt.



You got taken. Try shopping in another store or switch brands.

BTW - the GST reduction will save you an amazing .18 cents.

Oh, thanks for the advice. :ahem:

And multiply that .18 by hundreds of items over the course of a month and it adds up over a year!



I know and can guarantee that you did not pay anything NEAR $499,000 for a 1200 sq ft home in Edmonton. Admit that you bought your house decades ago for a 10th of that price.

Simple math makes a mortgage on a $499,000 home with a take home income of $40,000 a year impossible to manage. You would have to earn at least $100k a year before you could be considered for a mortgage of that size (assuming you have 10% down.).

You are correct, we bought our house in 1978. For more than a tenth of that price, thank you very much. And paid it off in 2001. What's your point? If I were to sell it today, I would be putting the entire equity into another dwelling.......which I would have to pay GST on!

My point is that houses are expensive, evem "average" ones, and there are people of all different economic levels who are buying houses right now in Alberta. Huge mortgages are the norm. People are so used to living beyond their means that another few hundred thousand dollars of debt means nothing to them.



You are missing the point. A GST reduction does more to benefit the people who need it the least and does the least to benefit the people who need it the most. A better use of the money would be to reinvest in cities, rebuild infrastructure, fund public transit, public schools or healthcare. Funding daycare programs, cleaning up the environment or just paying down the national debt makes more sense than making overpriced goodies more affordable.

So, the government should continue taking money out of even the poor people's pockets by not reducing the GST to pay for all these programs and things that you suggest.


The thing that I object to is seeing tax dollars I have paid to keep my country running in a civilized, modern fashion being shoveled to the wealthy who use it to buy new toys. I would rather the 2% of the GST be used to build new hospitals, pay for more doctors, build another rail transit line, fund some more daycare spots, than be used to bribe voters to support a neo-con government with no vision.

The thing that you object to is that people who work hard for their money and have more than you do get the same tax breaks that you do. Too bad you are so begrudging of those that are wealthy that you would deny tax breaks for everyone else just to spite them!


Oh yeah, maybe you don't remember Jean Chretien bribing voters with his promise to get rid of the GST altogether in his first campaign. Which he then didn't do when he got into power. And not only didn't he do it, he lied and said that he never said he would, even through repeated showings of the newsclip where he said he would.

So, the Lying Liberals and money hunger NDP's are worse than the Conservatives.

[Bill the Cat]

Or, "If you don't give me as much of your money as I want, you're stealing from me."

Honestly, that cuts to the core of the liberal agenda, doesn't it? As long as you have no incentive, and even are offered negative incentives, to get rich, then you stay indebted to the generosity of the government, who keep taking money from the rich, offering less incentive to become self-sufficient. The minute you no longer need the government to support you is the minute you become their cash cow. And the more they can make self-sufficiency a bad idea, the more they keep you under their finger, all the while blaming those evil rich self-sufficient cash cows for having money in the first place.

[Crow]

A Socialist Bus Ride

FirstSunday33ad rides the bus every day, to and fro, 14 trips a week. It costs $3.50 per rider to operate the bus each trip, but because of tax subsidies, the actual price of the ride is $1.00. FirstSunday33ad pays nearly zilch in taxes to subsidize public transportation. Wealthy capitalists pay quite a bit in taxes, and therefore foot nearly the entire cost of public transportation.

One day because of a sporting event parking is at a premium in town, so a Wealthy Capitalist decides to take the bus to work. He gets on and pays his $1.00. FirstSunday33ad gets on next. He scows at the Wealthy Capitalist, pulls a bill out of his pocket, and as he drops it in the fare box, he announces, "I hope that you're happy, you greedy ungrateful jerk! That's another $1.00 you've stolen from me!"

[mossrose]

By the way, FS. What makes you think you know so much about Canada and it's politics and taxes?

Your profile says you are living in the States.

Even if you once lived in Canada, you have no concept of what it is like right now, this minute, and the GST reduction or non-reduction doesn't affect you anyway.

[FirstSunday33ad]

Taxes don't grow on trees. That money originally came out of somebody's pocket. That person now gets to keep more of THEIR money. This isn't you losing money, it's you not getting to freeload off somebody else's money.

Oh I see. When I pay taxes and elect a government with the mandate to spend those taxes on healthcare - I'm a freeloader.

When a weathly person doesn't pay anywhere near what I pay (proportionally) but elects a government that then cuts his taxes even further by taking away healthcare for me and mine - that person is not a freeloader.

I see.

BTW - You're insane.

[FirstSunday33ad]

OK, let's see.

You pay very little in taxes.

Rich people pay a lot in taxes.

You say that the money is going out of your pocket and to the wealthy, even though it appears that the great majority of your money goes to......you.

I pay a lot in taxes. 49% of my earnings go to tax in one form or another (Income, sales, hidden, "because we can", corporate welfare, etc).

Rich people porportionally pay much less in tax. Do you know the tax rate on Capital Gains is just 40%? What that means is for every $100 a person gains in investment return, only $40.00 is consider earned income and goes on the tax return at the end of the year. $60 is tax free.

Neo-con governments gave them this free ride by taking away goods and services it used to provide to me and mine and by increasing the tax rate of the middle class. So no, the money doesn't go to ....me. It goes to ....Them.

[FirstSunday33ad]

Dear Lord... look in the dictionary under socialist and it says "Read this thread".

How DARE you try to make something of yourself! If you DARE get rich, we are going to TAX your pants off just so those who are not as fortunate as you can avoid having to pay anything for the exact same services you use. Why is their burden more than yours? What evil did they commit that they now have to pay theirs AND yours?

Do you know the West only started becoming "rich" AFTER social-democracy was introduced?

Prior to that the West was a third world nation.

[mossrose]

Neo-con governments gave them this free ride by taking away goods and services it used to provide to me and mine and by increasing the tax rate of the middle class. So no, the money doesn't go to ....me. It goes to ....Them.

The Conservative government in power now hasn't even been in power for 2 years! Anything that you claim has been taken away from you to give to the rich was NOT done by this government! So you had better be blaming your beloved Jean Chretien and Paul Martin, and before them, Trudeau!

[FirstSunday33ad]

A Socialist Bus Ride

FirstSunday33ad rides the bus every day, to and fro, 14 trips a week. It costs $3.50 per rider to operate the bus each trip, but because of tax subsidies, the actual price of the ride is $1.00. FirstSunday33ad pays nearly zilch in taxes to subsidize public transportation. Wealthy capitalists pay quite a bit in taxes, and therefore foot nearly the entire cost of public transportation.

One day because of a sporting event parking is at a premium in town, so a Wealthy Capitalist decides to take the bus to work. He gets on and pays his $1.00. FirstSunday33ad gets on next. He scows at the Wealthy Capitalist, pulls a bill out of his pocket, and as he drops it in the fare box, he announces, "I hope that you're happy, you greedy ungrateful jerk! That's another $1.00 you've stolen from me!"

80% of transit costs are paid by riders in my city. The remaining 20% comes from the city. The cost of a single fare is $2.75. Routes have been cut and drivers laid off to make up the budget shortfall as inflation makes it almost impossible for the city to fund transit and riders are getting fed up with fare increases.

As a result gridlock on the highway system is becoming impassable as the number of cars increases yearly. The neo-con government responded to this growing crises by promising to build more highways even as it cut funding to the city for transit. However, as it refused to raise taxes to fund the additional construction, plans are on hold until an alternative (such as private investment) can be found.

The result is an inadequet and increasing costly transit system, poor roads and gridlock.

BTW - If I ever saw a "wealthy capitalist" riding one of our buses, I would shake his or her hand for doing a bit to help the environment and easing the gridlock.

[Teallaura]

Do you know the West only started becoming "rich" AFTER social-democracy was introduced?

Prior to that the West was a third world nation.


There was this thing called a World War - which is the real reason the US jumped so high in its GNP. The idea that it was a 'third world' nation prior to that is insane. Far moreso if you consider all the First World nations 'third world' at the time.

:lolo:

[FirstSunday33ad]

And if anybody quits smoking and drinking, they will save a whopping lot more.





That is an invalid point. There is no GST on rent, anyway.





My family IS an average Canadian family. And "rich" or "poor", when a person buys a bag of chips, the GST is the same! Or when I pay for utilities for my home, and my neighbour who makes $40,000 a year more than I do pays for his utilities, the GST is the same!



My family IS an average Canadian family! We are, and always have been, careful with our money. And have taught our children to be careful with their money and stay out of debt.





Oh, thanks for the advice. :ahem:

And multiply that .18 by hundreds of items over the course of a month and it adds up over a year!





You are correct, we bought our house in 1978. For more than a tenth of that price, thank you very much. And paid it off in 2001. What's your point? If I were to sell it today, I would be putting the entire equity into another dwelling.......which I would have to pay GST on!

My point is that houses are expensive, evem "average" ones, and there are people of all different economic levels who are buying houses right now in Alberta. Huge mortgages are the norm. People are so used to living beyond their means that another few hundred thousand dollars of debt means nothing to them.





So, the government should continue taking money out of even the poor people's pockets by not reducing the GST to pay for all these programs and things that you suggest.




The thing that you object to is that people who work hard for their money and have more than you do get the same tax breaks that you do. Too bad you are so begrudging of those that are wealthy that you would deny tax breaks for everyone else just to spite them!


Oh yeah, maybe you don't remember Jean Chretien bribing voters with his promise to get rid of the GST altogether in his first campaign. Which he then didn't do when he got into power. And not only didn't he do it, he lied and said that he never said he would, even through repeated showings of the newsclip where he said he would.

So, the Lying Liberals and money hunger NDP's are worse than the Conservatives.

Okay, so all this can be boiled down to these points:

1) I own a home myself and paid a heck of a lot more for it than you did.

I still want the government to invest in people and not reward the rich for being wealthy

2) My household income is six figures.

I still want the government to invest in people and not reward the rich

3) I work very hard.

I still want the government to invest in people and not reward the rich.

Do you get the picture? I want to live in a civilized society where children are fed, housed, clothed, educated and raised with the best opportunities and the greatest hopes for the future and not shunted into an open grave because they lack the right stuff.

Lazy, stupid, ugly or poor - I don't care; everybody deserves a chance to better their lot. To demand that this be limited to the smart, lucky or beautiful is shallow and ultimately self-destructive.

Keep my taxes - give me healthcare, schools, public transit and clean cities instead.

[FirstSunday33ad]

There was this thing called a World War - which is the real reason the US jumped so high in its GNP. The idea that it was a 'third world' nation prior to that is insane. Far moreso if you consider all the First World nations 'third world' at the time.

:lolo:

Study some social history first before twirling your finger. Start by reading "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair

[mossrose]

Lazy, stupid, ugly or poor - I don't care; everybody deserves a chance to better their lot. To demand that this be limited to the smart, lucky or beautiful is shallow and ultimately self-destructive

What are you on about? No one said anything about the ability to better their lot be limited to the "smart, lucky or beautiful" .

You are raving, now.

[Teallaura]

Study some social history first before twirling your finger. Start by reading "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair

Try reading some history yourself - and someone other than Sinclair.

:no:

[Teallaura]

What are you on about? No one said anything about the ability to better their lot be limited to the "smart, lucky or beautiful" .

You are raving, now.

He's been raving the whole time. He just hates rich people - and has a weird definition of rich (if $40K is rich in Canada I might just consider moving there after all - right after I sink a geothermal well, of course). The guy's a bigot, simple as that.

[Bill the Cat]

Do you know the West only started becoming "rich" AFTER social-democracy was introduced?

Prior to that the West was a third world nation.

I'm not talking NATIONAL wealth, but INDIVIDUAL wealth, which has been going on a lot longer than socialism.

[Bill the Cat]

He's been raving the whole time. He just hates rich people - and has a weird definition of rich (if $40K is rich in Canada I might just consider moving there after all - right after I sink a geothermal well, of course). The guy's a bigot, simple as that.

He keeps saying he wants the Government to invest in people, but refuses to say "as long as they are not rich"

[mossrose]

He's been raving the whole time. He just hates rich people - and has a weird definition of rich (if $40K is rich in Canada I might just consider moving there after all - right after I sink a geothermal well, of course). The guy's a bigot, simple as that.
$40 grand isn't necessarily "rich". But it is more than enough for our needs.

Because we are careful, and we don't do stuff that costs more than we can afford. I refuse to go into debt. Especially now that the biggest debt, the house, is paid for.

[Teallaura]

Nothing you described is consistent with 'rich' - good money management on a middle class income, yes; rich, no.

[mossrose]

:yes:

[Jimmy Higgins]

What bull flop!
Honestly, that cuts to the core of the liberal agenda, doesn't it? As long as you have no incentive, and even are offered negative incentives, to get rich, then you stay indebted to the generosity of the government, who keep taking money from the rich, offering less incentive to become self-sufficient.That has got to be one of the most outlandish things about liberals I've ever read. Sadly, it is a foundational "understanding" that literally millions of conservatives have of liberals.

A couple facts:

1) The United States taxes the richest in the country at a rate smaller than any other industrialized nation.

2) If you tax a person who made $15 million at 40%, they take how $9 million. Oh the humanity, how will they ever survive on a mere $9 million. So this whole idea of, liberals don't want people to get rich, tthat taxing takes away incentive is absolute bollocks. It is a petty and shallow argument.

And when accounting for payroll taxes (according to a right-wing news show, I think it was a substitute for Limbaugh a week or two ago), the richest people in the country barely pay a higher percentage of the taxes, per percentage of wealth controlled than poor people.

[Bill the Cat]

What bull flop!

uh-huh... whatever you say...

That has got to be one of the most outlandish things about liberals I've ever read. Sadly, it is a foundational "understanding" that literally millions of conservatives have of liberals.

And it is dead on. Just look at the incentives to stay on welfare the dems passed (until the hypocrisy was exposed by the right). Or perhaps the inheritance tax on over 1 million dollars.

My in-laws have $10 million dollars. If they were to die today, the gov't would get $4 million of the money that they worked to leave to their child and grand children. Now, they have put some of it in gift funds and trust funds to save some of that tax expense, but they will still be heavily taxed. If I died today with my meager life insurance policy of $500,000, I would get taxed a grand total of... ZIP! Talk about biased!

A couple facts:

1) The United States taxes the richest in the country at a rate smaller than any other industrialized nation.

I do not know where you are getting your facts from, but Forbes Magazine says the UAE is the lowest, followed by Hong Kong, Cyprus, Georgia, and Singapore. http://members.forbes.com/global/2006/0522/032.html

2) If you tax a person who made $15 million at 40%, they take how $9 million. Oh the humanity, how will they ever survive on a mere $9 million. So this whole idea of, liberals don't want people to get rich, tthat taxing takes away incentive is absolute bollocks. It is a petty and shallow argument.

It is petty that you are so jealous that this person does not deserve to have nearly half of their income taken from them for no other reason than they have it. Give me a REAL reason why they should be taxed at a higher rate than anyone else. Fair share... HA!

And when accounting for payroll taxes (according to a right-wing news show, I think it was a substitute for Limbaugh a week or two ago), the richest people in the country barely pay a higher percentage of the taxes, per percentage of wealth controlled than poor people.

Yet, who pays the salaries of the "poor people"? The fact is that 9 out of 10 in the top 5 percent of wealthiest Americans worked to gain their fortune. Taxing them at a higher rate for gaining the American dream is simply wrong, yet it is the goal of the liberals to do just that. Get rich and we get to tax the socks off of you. That's the liberal way, whether you like it or not.

[Darth Executor]

Oh I see. When I pay taxes and elect a government with the mandate to spend those taxes on healthcare - I'm a freeloader.

No. When you expect somebody else to pay for your healthcare as well, then you're a freeloader. Public health care doesn't benefit the wealthy. It only benefits you.

When a weathly person doesn't pay anywhere near what I pay (proportionally) but elects a government that then cuts his taxes even further by taking away healthcare for me and mine - that person is not a freeloader.

No, he isn't. Even if you were right (rich people pay MORE than poor people, proportionally; the more money you make, the higher the % that gets taken out), the wealthy couldn't care less about public health care and the measly taxes you put into it. They can pay for their own health care. It's you who's getting a free ride.

[Jimmy Higgins]

And it is dead on. Just look at the incentives to stay on welfare the dems passed (until the hypocrisy was exposed by the right). Or perhaps the inheritance tax on over 1 million dollars.

My in-laws have $10 million dollars. If they were to die today, the gov't would get $4 million of the money that they worked to leave to their child and grand children. Now, they have put some of it in gift funds and trust funds to save some of that tax expense, but they will still be heavily taxed. If I died today with my meager life insurance policy of $500,000, I would get taxed a grand total of... ZIP! Talk about biased!Funny. Because back when dealing with the mother of all tax cuts, the Dems tried to put a basement on the estate tax. It kept getting voted down. Then John McCain put in an amendment to put the basement at $100 million, ie any inheritence under $100 million wouldn't be subjected to the estate tax. The Republicans voted it down. So much for them worrying about all those "small farmers".



I do not know where you are getting your facts from, but Forbes Magazine says the UAE is the lowest, followed by Hong Kong, Cyprus, Georgia, and Singapore. http://members.forbes.com/global/2006/0522/032.html
I said Industrialized world. You want to include UAE, Georgia and Cyprus in that list? I'll restate it, however, the US taxes it's richest at one of the lowest rates in the industrialized world.

It is petty that you are so jealous that this person does not deserve to have nearly half of their income taken from them for no other reason than they have it. Give me a REAL reason why they should be taxed at a higher rate than anyone else. Fair share... HA!Petty? What is petty is that you said that the tax rate scheme takes incentive away from trying to be rich. As I noted in my example, a person making $15 million, still is quite rich after taxes, so the incentive... it's still there. It wasn't taken away, that is just another made up claim by people who are adamently against taxation.

Yet, who pays the salaries of the "poor people"? The fact is that 9 out of 10 in the top 5 percent of wealthiest Americans worked to gain their fortune. Taxing them at a higher rate for gaining the American dream is simply wrong, yet it is the goal of the liberals to do just that. Get rich and we get to tax the socks off of you. That's the liberal way, whether you like it or not.Um, you forgot the point I raised. When assessing the percentage of tax paid for income, including payroll taxes, the rich barely pay a higher percentage of the tax overall than everyone else, as per percentage of wealth controlled. So while the rich are getting fleeced with the income tax, they are paying a tiny percentage of their income into social security and medicare. The poor pay a much higher percentage of their income into payroll taxes than the rich. That guy making $15 million a year, is only paying about 0.6% of his income into Social Security. People making under the $80,000ish ceiling, are all paying the same 6.2%. So people making under the ceiling are paying 10 times the rate of their salary than the person making $15 million.

So in the end, the rich and the poor are paying about the same in taxes, as per their control of the national wealth.

[Bill the Cat]

Funny. Because back when dealing with the mother of all tax cuts, the Dems tried to put a basement on the estate tax. It kept getting voted down. Then John McCain put in an amendment to put the basement at $100 million, ie any inheritence under $100 million wouldn't be subjected to the estate tax. The Republicans voted it down. So much for them worrying about all those "small farmers".

The Republicans want the estate tax completely disbanded, for rich and poor alike. No one should have to pay the estate tax, and suggesting that only the rich should pay it is discrimination against the rich, like it or not. Seriously, let's boil it down. You want them to pay the estate tax for no other reason than they are rich, don't you? You already admit that they pay relatively the same percentage of taxes that the poor do. Why is that a bad thing? Why should their taxes be so much higher other than they become a potential cash cow for the government? That's unfairness at its finest.


I said Industrialized world. You want to include UAE, Georgia and Cyprus in that list? I'll restate it, however, the US taxes it's richest at one of the lowest rates in the industrialized world.

Depends on where you go. According to the list, Texas taxes their rich at a slightly lower rate than does New York (Which has a higher misery rate than England, Mexico, Canada, Israel, and Switzerland). Both fall near the middle to lower section of the world, admittedly, but it is not that much lower than the highest nations.

Petty? What is petty is that you said that the tax rate scheme takes incentive away from trying to be rich. As I noted in my example, a person making $15 million, still is quite rich after taxes, so the incentive... it's still there. It wasn't taken away, that is just another made up claim by people who are adamently against taxation.

Rubbish! You see the rich as a cash cow and see no problem with levying unfair higher tax burdens on them. They pay most of the gross taxes collected as it is, yet you are not satisfied until they pay more.

Um, you forgot the point I raised. When assessing the percentage of tax paid for income, including payroll taxes, the rich barely pay a higher percentage of the tax overall than everyone else, as per percentage of wealth controlled. So while the rich are getting fleeced with the income tax, they are paying a tiny percentage of their income into social security and medicare. The poor pay a much higher percentage of their income into payroll taxes than the rich. That guy making $15 million a year, is only paying about 0.6% of his income into Social Security. People making under the $80,000ish ceiling, are all paying the same 6.2%. So people making under the ceiling are paying 10 times the rate of their salary than the person making $15 million.

So in the end, the rich and the poor are paying about the same in taxes, as per their control of the national wealth.

And you see a problem with them paying the same overall rate of taxes. If you look at the total tax paid after refunds and other data, the poor pay no income tax at all, and in fact have a negative tax burden up to a certain tax bracket.


The top 1 percent of income earners paid about 36.7 percent of federal income taxes and 25.3 percent of all federal taxes in 2004. The top 20 percent of income earners paid 67.1 percent of all federal taxes, up from 66.1 percent in 2000, according to the budget office.

By contrast, families in the bottom 40 percent of income earners, those with incomes below $36,300, typically paid no federal income tax and received money back from the government. That so-called negative income tax stemmed mainly from the earned-income tax credit, a program that benefits low-income parents who are employed.

Put another way: rich families were the undisputed winners from President Bush’s tax cuts, but people in the bottom half of the earnings scale were not paying much in taxes anyway.


So why should the rich shoulder all of the tax burden? Just because they are rich?

[Jimmy Higgins]

What is with the accusatory tone in your post? Calm down will ya?
The Republicans want the estate tax completely disbanded, for rich and poor alike.The poor already don't pay it.
No one should have to pay the estate tax, and suggesting that only the rich should pay it is discrimination against the rich, like it or not.Not if the asset hasn't been taxed already.
Seriously, let's boil it down. You want them to pay the estate tax for no other reason than they are rich, don't you?Accusations now? I hate the rich? Want the rich to suffer? Boil the rich in fatty oils and eat them?
You already admit that they pay relatively the same percentage of taxes that the poor do.WHOA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hey doggy, I'm not the person who claims that the rich pay an unfair due of taxation. For you to gloss over this is bad form. The rich pay about the same as the poor right now. So as it stands now, the rich aren't getting taxed unfairly, like some many in the right-wing say.

And as I noted, the Republicans wouldn't even vote for a $100,000,000 ceiling on the estate tax. So this has nothing to do with protecting the poor. It's about helping the rich protect their untaxed liabilities.

Rubbish! You see the rich as a cash cow and see no problem with levying unfair higher tax burdens on them. They pay most of the gross taxes collected as it is, yet you are not satisfied until they pay more. Whoa. That is simply untrue! The rich pay a bare minimum more than the poor regarding taxes as a whole.

And you see a problem with them paying the same overall rate of taxes. If you look at the total tax paid after refunds and other data, the poor pay no income tax at all, and in fact have a negative tax burden up to a certain tax bracket.[/quote]The article cites only income tax, not including the payroll taxes.

[Bill the Cat]

What is with the accusatory tone in your post? Calm down will ya?

I'm calm, actually I'm quite amused!

The poor already don't pay it.

If I recall correctly, anyone whose total estate is valued at over 1.5 Million (not THAT much these days) has to pay it.


Not if the asset hasn't been taxed already.

Like what? Sales taxes, investment taxes, and the like are all levied at the time of purchase.

Accusations now? I hate the rich? Want the rich to suffer? Boil the rich in fatty oils and eat them?

Never said you hate them, I said you want to tax them for no other reason than their being rich. Do you want to raise their taxes or not? If so, why?

WHOA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hey doggy, I'm not the person who claims that the rich pay an unfair due of taxation.

Nor am I . I am saying they pay ENOUGH already, so raising taxes on them SPECIFICALLY is wrong. And it's KITTY, not Doggie... :hehe:

For you to gloss over this is bad form. The rich pay about the same as the poor right now. So as it stands now, the rich aren't getting taxed unfairly, like some many in the right-wing say.

Notice I do not say they are getting taxed unfairly, but am against taxing them twice for something or raising their taxes without raising everyone elses rate equally.

And as I noted, the Republicans wouldn't even vote for a $100,000,000 ceiling on the estate tax. So this has nothing to do with protecting the poor. It's about helping the rich protect their untaxed liabilities.

Its about endig the tax altogether. They don't want a ceiling because they want the tax gone.

Whoa. That is simply untrue! The rich pay a bare minimum more than the poor regarding taxes as a whole.

So do you want them paying proportionally more?


The article cites only income tax, not including the payroll taxes.

I cited the article to show that the top 20% pays 80% of the taxes. That's the way it is. Do you or do you not want them to shoulder even more of the tax burden at the expense of lowering taxes for the poor? Or do you want to leave the taxes as is? What's your plan for taxes?

[Jimmy Higgins]

I cited the article to show that the top 20% pays 80% of the taxes.That top 20% owns like 80% of the wealth!
That's the way it is. Do you or do you not want them to shoulder even more of the tax burden at the expense of lowering taxes for the poor? Or do you want to leave the taxes as is? What's your plan for taxes?Dude, you are going to hurt your back shifting the goalposts all over the place.

The rich pay a triffle amount more on taxes, overall, than the poor. This fact is my main concern. You won't hear right-wingers saying it. They say the rich are taxed to death. But the fact remains, that overall, the rich pay a little more in taxes overall than the poor do.

[Bill the Cat]

That top 20% owns like 80% of the wealth!
Dude, you are going to hurt your back shifting the goalposts all over the place.

The rich pay a triffle amount more on taxes, overall, than the poor. This fact is my main concern. You won't hear right-wingers saying it. They say the rich are taxed to death. But the fact remains, that overall, the rich pay a little more in taxes overall than the poor do.

So I'll take your silence as what?

Do you or do you not want to tax the rich more?

[Jimmy Higgins]

So I'll take your silence as what?

Do you or do you not want to tax the rich more?Silence? What silence? I entered this thread to clear up a gross misperception that tens of millions (hundreds?) of Americans hold regarding how the rich are taxed.

My first post in here dealt with the myths you brought up:

- "high taxes" on rich ruin incentive to become rich

I've shown that the rich aren't overtaxed and that if you are rich, you can't get taxed to the point of being unrich.

I'm not buying your "the rich" are martyrs thing and I'm not interested in talking about tax policy with you as you are clearly uninterested in an open fair dialogue on the subject.

I consider my part in this thread over as it has not been disputed (it can't be) that the rich pay only a small amount of extra taxes than the poor overall.

[Bill the Cat]

Silence? What silence? I entered this thread to clear up a gross misperception that tens of millions (hundreds?) of Americans hold regarding how the rich are taxed.

My first post in here dealt with the myths you brought up:

- "high taxes" on rich ruin incentive to become rich

I've shown that the rich aren't overtaxed and that if you are rich, you can't get taxed to the point of being unrich.

I'm not buying your "the rich" are martyrs thing and I'm not interested in talking about tax policy with you as you are clearly uninterested in an open fair dialogue on the subject.

I consider my part in this thread over as it has not been disputed (it can't be) that the rich pay only a small amount of extra taxes than the poor overall.

Do you want to raise taxes on the rich or not?

[mossrose]

Canadian dollar's higher again today.

:tongue:

[Gabby]

Man, this is a dilemma. We're spending Christmas in the states so do I wait and buy all my gifts down south at the last minute and save a few bucks, or have a nice leisurely shopping experience and buy it all up here?

[mossrose]

I don't know if you would save much, unless the prices are really lower there. We didn't find them to be much different than here on our trip. Of course, Calgary is higher than we are.

:nsm:

If it were me, I would check out prices online for whatever items I could, and then decide whether there is much saving to be done by waiting.

One advantage of buying there is not having to haul it all with you when you go.

:huggy:

[FirstSunday33ad]

http://www.thestar.com/article/274517

Here’s an interesting story I found regarding the tax rates in Canada. Right wing Canadians who argue that the wealthy pay too much in tax and deserve a reduction may find it interesting.

The key point can be found in these paragraphs:

“Those very rich Canadians paid 30.5 per cent of their income in federal, provincial and municipal taxes in 2005, as opposed to the 30.7 per cent for those with incomes under $13,523, the lowest 10 per cent of family earnings.”

And

“The highest taxed Canadian families are those earning between $120,000 and $151,000, who pay 36.9 per cent of their income in taxes. This group is followed closely both those earning $57,460 and $72,299 – whose tax bill represents 36.5 per cent of their total income.”

In other words in Canada the tax rate from highest to lowest rates versus income is:

$120,000 to $151,000 – 36.9%
$57,460 to $72,299 – 36.6%
$13,532 and under – 30.7%
$266,000 and above – 30.5%

Oh, yeah, the rich deserve yet anther tax cut.



In another related story in the same site, I also found this tidbit:

http://www.thestar.com/article/274687

Mississauga councillors have voted to add an unprecedented 5 per cent surcharge to property taxes next year as the city tries to tackle an infrastructure crisis that could put the famously debt-free municipality in hock within five years

…Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's mini-budget, which ignored urban needs in favour of cuts in the GST and income tax, left Mississauga with no choice but to impose a levy that could be collected annually for the next 20 years.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities estimates that municipalities that have borne the brunt of downloading of services and infrastructure costs face a deficit of almost $100 billion.

********************

Like I said, Neo-Cons should not be allowed anywhere near a nation economy.

[nomad]

So the taxes are being moved from the federal government to the local governments. This may be bad news for Mississauga residents, but it's good for the rest of the country, who are now not paying for Mississauga's urban needs.

I really don't think the tax rates on the rich need to be raised; more often, it's the variety of tax shelters available only to those with enough assets to take advantage of them which give the rich their advantage. Raising rates, like in the graph above, mostly affects the middle to upper-middle-class, who are rich enough to hit the higher rates, but not rich enough to be able to take advantage of the shelters.

[Bill the Cat]

http://www.thestar.com/article/274517

Here’s an interesting story I found regarding the tax rates in Canada. Right wing Canadians who argue that the wealthy pay too much in tax and deserve a reduction may find it interesting.

The key point can be found in these paragraphs:

“Those very rich Canadians paid 30.5 per cent of their income in federal, provincial and municipal taxes in 2005, as opposed to the 30.7 per cent for those with incomes under $13,523, the lowest 10 per cent of family earnings.”

And

“The highest taxed Canadian families are those earning between $120,000 and $151,000, who pay 36.9 per cent of their income in taxes. This group is followed closely both those earning $57,460 and $72,299 – whose tax bill represents 36.5 per cent of their total income.”

In other words in Canada the tax rate from highest to lowest rates versus income is:

$120,000 to $151,000 – 36.9%
$57,460 to $72,299 – 36.6%
$13,532 and under – 30.7%
$266,000 and above – 30.5%

Oh, yeah, the rich deserve yet anther tax cut.



In another related story in the same site, I also found this tidbit:

http://www.thestar.com/article/274687

Mississauga councillors have voted to add an unprecedented 5 per cent surcharge to property taxes next year as the city tries to tackle an infrastructure crisis that could put the famously debt-free municipality in hock within five years

…Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's mini-budget, which ignored urban needs in favour of cuts in the GST and income tax, left Mississauga with no choice but to impose a levy that could be collected annually for the next 20 years.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities estimates that municipalities that have borne the brunt of downloading of services and infrastructure costs face a deficit of almost $100 billion.

********************

Like I said, Neo-Cons should not be allowed anywhere near a nation economy.

And I noticed from the same study, but a different source:

Lee's study found that the lowest income earners pay very little or no income tax, but they do spend a disproportionately high percentage of their income on taxes that are considered to be more regressive, such as sales taxes, property taxes and other government revenue generators such as licence fees, gaming and liquor sales.


So, it would seem their higher proportion of taxes are, by and large, things they CHOOSE to buy. The numbers look scary, but economically speaking, they are misleading. Someone who makes 20,000 a year, but buys 2,000 a year in beer taxed at 10% would pay 1% of their yearly income in taxes on their beer alons. It would take someone making $200,000 buying $20,000 a year in beer at the same tax rate to equal the same net percentage of their income. Is it fair to punish the rich by raising their other taxes to compensate for their lack of buying $20,000 worth of beer?

[FirstSunday33ad]

So, it would seem their higher proportion of taxes are, by and large, things they CHOOSE to buy. The numbers look scary, but economically speaking, they are misleading. Someone who makes 20,000 a year, but buys 2,000 a year in beer taxed at 10% would pay 1% of their yearly income in taxes on their beer alons. It would take someone making $200,000 buying $20,000 a year in beer at the same tax rate to equal the same net percentage of their income. Is it fair to punish the rich by raising their other taxes to compensate for their lack of buying $20,000 worth of beer?

Firstly: “they do spend a disproportionately high percentage of their income on taxes that are considered to be more regressive, such as sales taxes, property taxes…”

Sales tax and property tax are not CHOICES. There is no selection between buying a product that does have sales tax and one that does not. They all have sales tax. The same with property tax; you pay it regardless of whether you own or rent (the landlord passes his cost on to his tenants).

Secondly: Let’s assume that a person earning gross $20,000 yearly spends 10% of his income on beer. We won’t argue the feasibility of a person spending $166.66 monthly on beer (24 bottle case @ $28.00 to $35.00 = 4/5 cases per month. This would more likely indicate someone with a drinking problem than an average person). Let’s also ignore a net income on $20,000 gross is appx. $13,860.00 or $1,155.00 per month; meaning our heavy drinking low wage earner must buy rent, food, clothing, bus fares, medicine and sundries on $988.34 after beer has been bought (an amazing feat of budgetary magic if he lives in a major city).

Instead, we will look at the tax such a person pays. The tax on $166.66 monthly is $23.33 (assuming the PST/GST of 14%) This is $279.99 per year on a $13,860.00 income or 2.02%. So our low wage earner sees a combined drop of $2,279.99 or 16.45% of his income on supporting his drinking habit.

Now our wealthy drinker spends $20,000 of his income on booze (not beer, but fine wines and champagne. His take home after taxes is apprx. $139,000 and he pays $2,800.00 yearly in tax on his booze collection. So, on his net income he pays 2.01% in tax. Our high wage earner sees a combined drop of $22,800.00 per year on his income or 16.40%.

Finally, your implication is that the wealthy not only don’t spend $20,000 a year on booze but that they cannot. This is a false implication. While it is true that $20,000 a year on beer would buy a brewery, it is a more than reasonable amount when you are speaking of fine wines, 12/ 15/ 20/ 25 year old whiskies and champagnes. I can refer to a person of my own acquaintance who earns about $500K a year in salary alone as VP of a major drug firm. He spends on average between $15 and $20,000 on alcohol. A single bottle of wine cost him $1,500.00. Granted, this is more of his hobby and he takes great pride in his wine cellar; but then it is equally rare for someone earning $20,000 yearly to spend $2,000 of it on beer.

[Bill the Cat]

Firstly: “they do spend a disproportionately high percentage of their income on taxes that are considered to be more regressive, such as sales taxes, property taxes…”

Sales tax and property tax are not CHOICES. There is no selection between buying a product that does have sales tax and one that does not. They all have sales tax. The same with property tax; you pay it regardless of whether you own or rent (the landlord passes his cost on to his tenants).

Secondly: Let’s assume that a person earning gross $20,000 yearly spends 10% of his income on beer. We won’t argue the feasibility of a person spending $166.66 monthly on beer (24 bottle case @ $28.00 to $35.00 = 4/5 cases per month. This would more likely indicate someone with a drinking problem than an average person). Let’s also ignore a net income on $20,000 gross is appx. $13,860.00 or $1,155.00 per month; meaning our heavy drinking low wage earner must buy rent, food, clothing, bus fares, medicine and sundries on $988.34 after beer has been bought (an amazing feat of budgetary magic if he lives in a major city).

Instead, we will look at the tax such a person pays. The tax on $166.66 monthly is $23.33 (assuming the PST/GST of 14%) This is $279.99 per year on a $13,860.00 income or 2.02%. So our low wage earner sees a combined drop of $2,279.99 or 16.45% of his income on supporting his drinking habit.

Now our wealthy drinker spends $20,000 of his income on booze (not beer, but fine wines and champagne. His take home after taxes is apprx. $139,000 and he pays $2,800.00 yearly in tax on his booze collection. So, on his net income he pays 2.01% in tax. Our high wage earner sees a combined drop of $22,800.00 per year on his income or 16.40%.

Finally, your implication is that the wealthy not only don’t spend $20,000 a year on booze but that they cannot. This is a false implication. While it is true that $20,000 a year on beer would buy a brewery, it is a more than reasonable amount when you are speaking of fine wines, 12/ 15/ 20/ 25 year old whiskies and champagnes. I can refer to a person of my own acquaintance who earns about $500K a year in salary alone as VP of a major drug firm. He spends on average between $15 and $20,000 on alcohol. A single bottle of wine cost him $1,500.00. Granted, this is more of his hobby and he takes great pride in his wine cellar;


Yup... as I figured, my data zipped RIGHT over your head. When you tax everyone at the same rate, like the sales tax, the rich have to buy substantially more, or intentionally more expensive similar items, to get up to the proportion of their income to equal the poorer people. Let's look smaller and less controversial. If I make $500 a week in Canada (for a gross income of 25,000) and I spend $5 a week on toilet paper (1% of my income) and someone else makes $5000 a week (for a gross income of 250,000) and spends $5 a week on their toilet paper, that's only .1% of their income. You are suggesting raising the taxes on the rich man to compensate for the additional .9% of his income just to make it "fair"?



but then it is equally rare for someone earning $20,000 yearly to spend $2,000 of it on beer.

Obviously you have never lived in a trailer park like I have many years ago.

[nomad]

Sales tax and property tax are not CHOICES. There is no selection between buying a product that does have sales tax and one that does not. They all have sales tax.


No, the choice is between buying something (and paying sales tax) and not buying anything (and not paying sales tax). Given that we already waive the sales tax on (most of) those things the poor need (mortgage/rent, electricity, water, etc), then are we really complaining that the poor consume more than the rich? Because that wouldn't really make any sense, would it?

But, as you will probably note, the rich consume more of those tax-free resources than the poor. This is where something like the fairtax kicks in, taxing everything including mortgage, rent, and utilities (and then prebating a certain amount back to everyone, evenly, with no one paying tax up to a certain point, and sales tax kicking in afterwards). This is (IMHO) the only thing making a sales tax regressive in any meaningful sense: there are exceptions that not only the poor can take advantage of.

And, in fact, the mortage is a primary example of why things like this a difficult. There have been many people who have proposed getting rid of the home mortgage interest exemption (* and **). The mortgage interest deduction helps homeowners - and how. Given that the interest on a loan in the first part of the loan (where, over the life of the loan, the average homeowner will have the least income), this will raise his buying power by as much as 1/3 (whatever the highest tax rate is - incidentally, raising the highest tax rate also magnifies the effect of this deduction). The more expensive your house, the more you benefit from the exemption. There is a maximum I believe, but it's relatively high.

So it's pretty regressive in some sense. Also, because it increases the demand for houses (more people can afford them), it tends to cause the price of housing to rise, which impacts the poor as well.

But, as people have noted, it was put into place to encourage home ownership, and in fact to allow some people to be able to afford a house that couldn't before. This effect helps mostly those near the bottom edge - i.e. the poorest of those who are now able to afford a house. This also hardens the line between those just able to afford a house, and those who aren't able - it's much easier to 'trade up' once you are in the housing market, than getting in originally. Out in California (where I couldn't afford to buy anything), there are many people in 'million dollar' homes that they can't really afford - they a house for $250k 10 years ago, sold it 3 years later for $450, bought another house at $500k (on a not-much-bigger $300k loan), sold it 3 years later for $850k, bought their current house at $950k (on now a $400-450k loan), etc. This same person would in no way be able to afford a $1M mortgage today, starting from scratch.

Getting rid of the home mortgage interest exemption would be getting rid of a regressive tax policy, but the people most affected would be the lower middle class. And people with not much equity in their house (of any income level). Just how it goes, I guess.


The same with property tax; you pay it regardless of whether you own or rent (the landlord passes his cost on to his tenants).


This sounds sensible on the surface, but honestly, it isn't strictly true. Rents are not determined solely by the costs of property in the area. Rent is like any other 'good' offered for sale: it's as expensive as the market will bear. Rent is generally held down by the cost of a mortgage as a maximum; ignoring the barrier of the cost of buying a house in the first place (down payments etc.), in general if the rent gets too much higher than the cost of buying, then they will buy instead.

But that's only the maximum. You will find many rentals that were bought years ago and, though they are officially at market price, the actual mortgage paid on them may be far less than market price. This means their marginal cost is far below the current mortgage. If enough of these buildings exist, and rental demand is low, then you will see rents drop as apartments compete for renters. There's no direct correlation between rent and property taxes, though at some point the property taxes would of course completely eliminate any profit on the transaction and then rents would have to rise. Rents have fluctuated in Silicon Valley far more than house prices have, especially private rentals.

[FirstSunday33ad]

Yup... as I figured, my data zipped RIGHT over your head. When you tax everyone at the same rate, like the sales tax, the rich have to buy substantially more, or intentionally more expensive similar items, to get up to the proportion of their income to equal the poorer people. Let's look smaller and less controversial. If I make $500 a week in Canada (for a gross income of 25,000) and I spend $5 a week on toilet paper (1% of my income) and someone else makes $5000 a week (for a gross income of 250,000) and spends $5 a week on their toilet paper, that's only .1% of their income. You are suggesting raising the taxes on the rich man to compensate for the additional .9% of his income just to make it "fair"?

But that is comparing apples with oranges. It has nothing to do with comparable amounts; it has to do with impact on the bottom line.

As my previous reply showed, even if the high wage earner spends proportionally the same amount as the low wage earner, his income suffers a smaller tax hit since he is already paying less in overall tax to begin with. Further, his income can absorb the hit with greater ease than the low wage earner’s.

The complaint is not “the rich are paying less in sales tax proportionally to their income” the complaint is “the rich have a lower tax rate then everybody else”. At the outset your argument is invalid since because the wealthy have a greater discretionary income then the working poor they purchase more items and more expensive items. To refer to your toilet paper example; the low wage earner shops for value and buys the 12 rolls for $3.99 while the high wage earner shops for preference and buys the 4 rolls for $4.99.

You are focusing on one part of the overall story and drawing an invalid conclusion that if the low wage earner simply didn’t buy beer of if the high wage earner bought as much toilet paper, than their tax rates would equal. That is not what is being shown by the study at all. The overall rate of the wealthy is lower than the overall rate of everybody else because their taxes have been cut far more substantially than every body else. Sales tax, property tax and discretionary tax take more of the low wage earner’s income simply because an equal tax rate will hit a smaller income proportionally greater than a larger income.

[Bill the Cat]

But that is comparing apples with oranges. It has nothing to do with comparable amounts; it has to do with impact on the bottom line.

You're the one who keeps trying to compare apples and oranges, as exampled by your wine vs. beer and now cheap toilet paper vs. expensive toilet paper. I am comparing taxes on identical goods, you keep shifting the target to difrferent items as if that legitimizes your argument, which it does not.

As my previous reply showed, even if the high wage earner spends proportionally the same amount as the low wage earner, his income suffers a smaller tax hit since he is already paying less in overall tax to begin with.

Sorry, but I already quoted the study on why, and it has nothing to do with higher tax rates. It has to do with what area of income gets taxed.

Further, his income can absorb the hit with greater ease than the low wage earner’s.

And there is your bias. You expect the rich to pay proportionally more for the simple reason that they can.

The complaint is not “the rich are paying less in sales tax proportionally to their income” the complaint is “the rich have a lower tax rate then everybody else”.

Depends on what tax you are referring to. Income tax is dominated by the rich, as is inheritance tax and capital gains tax. In fact, most taxes are paid by the rich at a higher rate than the poor, but the poor are affected by small changes more dramatically than the rich. The major taxes that are paid at a higher rate by the poor are those I quoted above from that study.

At the outset your argument is invalid since because the wealthy have a greater discretionary income then (sic) the working poor they purchase more items and more expensive items.

Yet, that is not my point at all. It is your bias. I am comparing identical purchases and the tax rates on them. You are comparing different items and saying that those higher ticket items should be taxed at a higher rate simply because the rich buy them. That is anti-rich bigotry.

Oh, and it is THAN not THEN (pet peeve)

To refer to your toilet paper example; the low wage earner shops for value and buys the 12 rolls for $3.99 while the high wage earner shops for preference and buys the 4 rolls for $4.99.

Then you are comparing two separate items. I am not. Plus, not all high wage earners shop for comfort. My mother in law (a multi millionaire) still buys the cheapest toilet paper she can find.

You are focusing on one part of the overall story and drawing an invalid conclusion that if the low wage earner simply didn’t buy beer of if the high wage earner bought as much toilet paper, than (sic) their tax rates would equal.

I am not focusing on it at all. The study pointed it out, and I am showing that you are ignoring it. The poor do not pay anything in income tax, so their percentage of income tax is 0%. The rich do not have that benefit, and their income tax percentage is much higher than 0%, and in fact, is the highest of all brackets. Something else has to account for the equal total tax. That something else is sales tax and other licenses and fees, which both groups pay at an equal percentage of the sale or fee.

That is not what is being shown by the study at all. The overall rate of the wealthy is lower than the overall rate of everybody else because their taxes have been cut far more substantially than every body else.

Yet they still pay much higher in things like capital gains, income, and inheritance taxes. But you liberal types are not satisfied taking 32% of their income, because they are your tax and spend cash cows.

Sales tax, property tax and discretionary tax take more of the low wage earner’s income simply because an equal tax rate will hit a smaller income proportionally greater than a larger income.

No duh. That's the idea. A $50 license fee will affect the $500 a month income more than a $5000 a month. So do you want a separate sales tax or property tax on someone just because they are rich? Or do you propose taking HALF of their income, because they have it.

[Paintbucket]

Heh.

http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/Cartoon-Canada-Threat.jpg