Thank you Mr. *******......

1692 Views 11 Replies 7 Participants Last post by gerald guerrero, Nov 19, 2006

Accept2

Discussion Starter · Nov 1, 2006

A big thanks to our new Finance Minister who decided to put taxes on Income Trusts. Like the Liberal ******* before you, you show how we need a system where the politicians actually have credentials in the cabinet area that they oversee. Thank you for spoting an area in which double taxation doesnt exist so you can tax the shit out of it, and further erode the savings of Canadians. Thank you Mr. ****up.................

Save

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

MaxWedge

· #2 · Nov 1, 2006

Frustrated

I understand this guy's re-action over taxes. But really why does it have to be complicated in the first place. We are all equal. Simply put equal means equal. Why can't we have an even, equally applied tax. No BS. One rate. Applied to all.

Save

Coustfan'01

· #3 · Nov 1, 2006

MaxWedge said:
I understand this guy's re-action over taxes. But really why does it have to be complicated in the first place. We are all equal. Simply put equal means equal. Why can't we have an even, equally applied tax. No BS. One rate. Applied to all.

Or at least have big corporations pay taxes...As it is now the higher middle class is paying for everything .

Save

MaxWedge

· #4 · Nov 1, 2006

I stand by what I say...

Large corporations, small business, everyday working regular folks, everyone.

There's a number that should be easily calculated that represents the cost of running Canada. Devide that equally, and there's your rate of tax. No write offs, no special consideration.

Now someone is going to look at it, and find it over simplified. Sure, and that's where is ends up. A freakin' mess.

I think I'll leave taxes alone for the rest of the day.

Save

Accept2

Discussion Starter · #5 · Nov 1, 2006

Tax on Income Trusts is double taxation, and the ones that are going to be up shit creek because of this will be mostly seniors. Income Trusts are being set up to avoid double taxation. The government is saying that these "schemes" bleed the tax revenues, and thats a backwards way of thinking about it. It brings corporations and people who invest on the same playing field as individuals who work for that corporation. When the NDP Finance critic applauds what youve done, thats a sign that you really ****ed up.................

Save

Accept2

Discussion Starter · #6 · Nov 1, 2006

MaxWedge said:
Large corporations, small business, everyday working regular folks, everyone.

There's a number that should be easily calculated that represents the cost of running Canada. Devide that equally, and there's your rate of tax. No write offs, no special consideration.

Now someone is going to look at it, and find it over simplified. Sure, and that's where is ends up. A freakin' mess.

I think I'll leave taxes alone for the rest of the day.

There are movements within the tax theorists to replace the "temporary" income tax system with a value added purchase tax scheme. In this system you would pay no taxes on any income until youve purchased something, and thats when you pay your tax. This type of scheme removes any ability to have perks or write offs. It does however create underground markets. In Conneticut, a very wealthy state, they have used this type of scheme on assets. In that state you pay a yearly tax based on the value of your car. Unfortunately it has lead to a wealthy state of people driving shitty cars, and has killed the car sales industry. The problem lies in the fact that the tax system itself is run by lawyers who make tax laws that are theoritical rather than practical. When they announce $200 million in tax cuts, thats always in theory. In practice 5 people in the country will qualify and save $45 a piece. This tax on Income Trusts is a perfect example of impracticality...........

See less See more

Save

Accept2

Discussion Starter · #7 · Nov 1, 2006

Capital tax is the worst kind of tax, thats why its being phased out in Canada. Quebec is the worst for Capital tax, while Alberta is the best because they dont have it at all. Imagine having to pay tax because you have a bank loan...................

Save

Xanadu

· #8 · Nov 1, 2006

I think a better question is... If we have a North American Free Trade Agreement, why are we taxed when we buy gear, or anything, from the states?

Save

Emohawk

· #9 · Nov 2, 2006

Accept2 said:
and the ones that are going to be up shit creek because of this will be mostly seniors.

Actually, it's not just seniors. Think of who the big income trusts in Canada are. Now think about the content of all of our mutual funds & RRSP's. Cringing yet?

And if you happen to work for one of those trusts (like myself) and are involved in a stock savings plan, the last couple of days have NOT been fun!!! :confused-smiley-010

Save

gerald guerrero

· #10 · Nov 19, 2006

well, about taxing corporations. Have you ever seen Fiscal reports from these major corps? I mean, how much they help themsleves to at the end of the year? It's obscene. Case in point, our dearly beloved own dick-"Cheney".These Corps. wont be jacking up are prices , but just paying themselves a bit less and forgoing that yacht for the summer house in Novia Scotia, or at least going with the 90 ft. instead of the 120.I say lets have a sliding tax rate where those that are more fortunate pay the same exact precentage in proportion to everyone else.

Save

Wild Bill

· #11 · Nov 19, 2006

"It's the exact same thing, only different..."

Xanadu said:
I think a better question is... If we have a North American Free Trade Agreement, why are we taxed when we buy gear, or anything, from the states?

I think you are confusing taxes with duties and tariffs. They all pick our pocket just the same but they are very different things.

Duties and tariffs are designed to protect local industries from foreign competition. If you have a steel industry that produces steel at $40/ton and some other country has a surplus and decides to dump it into your country at $20 a ton you have a problem. The consumer has cheap steel for a while but all his domestic steel plants go bankrupt. All the jobs are lost and then the foreign outfit can charge whatever he wants.

GST and PST are forms of sales and service taxes. Nothing to do with NAFTA. The trade agreement was to reduce and/or eliminate duties and tariffs. Ottawa and the provinces still nail us GST/PST when stuff crosses the border. So do the Americans when a Yankee Ebayer receives the Traynor you shipped them. Their governments both state and Federal are just as greedy as ours.

What's worse, we cut out the duties and tariffs but kept all the damn paperwork!

Canada loves to sign free trade agreements but we seem to be kinda simple about it. We force big extra costs on our steel companies to reduce pollution but we allow China, who seems to spend ZERO on pollution controls to ship their steel into our market! This is fair market competition? That's why Kyoto seems so ridiculous to me. It exempts China and India, two countries that have nuclear bombs and space programs from reducing emissions, when they are now or in the case of China rapidly becoming the biggest polluters on the planet. Without any cost of reducing pollution China has a HUGE trade advantage! We have a Carl Sagan type of trade deficit with China - you know, billions and billions! They sell billions of dollars of stuff through all the Wal Marts to us and we sell a couple of Nortel phones to them.

We do the same thing with agricultural products. Strawberry farmers in the Niagara area try to compete with strawberries air-freighted in from eastern Europe. Their countries subsidize the hell out of the cost.

Grape farmers for years used Alar, a chemical product that prevented various forms of grape blight. We banned it. Unfortunately there just doesn't seem to be anything else that works even close as well. Yet Americans in upper New York still use it and thus can charge cheaper for their grapes when shipped into Canada. If the stuff is so dangerous for us to eat on our grapes then why is it ok for us to eat it on foreign grapes?

I'm straying a bit from your original point, I know. I just wanted to show the differences and how in Canada they don't appear to make sense anyway.

Or perhaps they do? It depends on your goal. Are you trying to protect Canadian industries? Or promote increased trade and jobs for everyone?

Or just bleed us close but not past the point where we die?

See less See more

Save

gerald guerrero

· #12 · Nov 19, 2006

Wild Bill said:
I think you are confusing taxes with duties and tariffs. They all pick our pocket just the same but they are very different things.

Duties and tariffs are designed to protect local industries from foreign competition. If you have a steel industry that produces steel at $40/ton and some other country has a surplus and decides to dump it into your country at $20 a ton you have a problem. The consumer has cheap steel for a while but all his domestic steel plants go bankrupt. All the jobs are lost and then the foreign outfit can charge whatever he wants.

GST and PST are forms of sales and service taxes. Nothing to do with NAFTA. The trade agreement was to reduce and/or eliminate duties and tariffs. Ottawa and the provinces still nail us GST/PST when stuff crosses the border. So do the Americans when a Yankee Ebayer receives the Traynor you shipped them. Their governments both state and Federal are just as greedy as ours.

What's worse, we cut out the duties and tariffs but kept all the damn paperwork!

Canada loves to sign free trade agreements but we seem to be kinda simple about it. We force big extra costs on our steel companies to reduce pollution but we allow China, who seems to spend ZERO on pollution controls to ship their steel into our market! This is fair market competition? That's why Kyoto seems so ridiculous to me. It exempts China and India, two countries that have nuclear bombs and space programs from reducing emissions, when they are now or in the case of China rapidly becoming the biggest polluters on the planet. Without any cost of reducing pollution China has a HUGE trade advantage! We have a Carl Sagan type of trade deficit with China - you know, billions and billions! They sell billions of dollars of stuff through all the Wal Marts to us and we sell a couple of Nortel phones to them.

We do the same thing with agricultural products. Strawberry farmers in the Niagara area try to compete with strawberries air-freighted in from eastern Europe. Their countries subsidize the hell out of the cost.

Grape farmers for years used Alar, a chemical product that prevented various forms of grape blight. We banned it. Unfortunately there just doesn't seem to be anything else that works even close as well. Yet Americans in upper New York still use it and thus can charge cheaper for their grapes when shipped into Canada. If the stuff is so dangerous for us to eat on our grapes then why is it ok for us to eat it on foreign grapes?

I'm straying a bit from your original point, I know. I just wanted to show the differences and how in Canada they don't appear to make sense anyway.

Or perhaps they do? It depends on your goal. Are you trying to protect Canadian industries? Or promote increased trade and jobs for everyone?

Or just bleed us close but not past the point where we die?

What he said!

Save

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.

Top Contributors this Month