Taxation and the middle class

[ijmorlan]

I could say a lot about this, but the thing that comes to mind is this: the property of a wealthy person or organization is, in practice, only property because it is defensible, specifically in our society by the existence of an organized government. So in fact a wealthy person actually uses the government more than a poor person, just by the simple act of owning, for example, multiple properties.

[Acitta]

I could say a lot about this, but the thing that comes to mind is this: the property of a wealthy person or organization is, in practice, only property because it is defensible, specifically in our society by the existence of an organized government. So in fact a wealthy person actually uses the government more than a poor person, just by the simple act of owning, for example, multiple properties.

They use it against us.

[danbrotherston]

I could say a lot about this, but the thing that comes to mind is this: the property of a wealthy person or organization is, in practice, only property because it is defensible, specifically in our society by the existence of an organized government. So in fact a wealthy person actually uses the government more than a poor person, just by the simple act of owning, for example, multiple properties.

Indeed. Our concept of ownership is not an inherent natural law, it is a feature of our particular society. Other people, and indeed, other societies have had different concepts of ownership. And you can really see this when you start to examine the edge cases, e.g., parking spaces on the street in front of your house, which must be cleared of snow. (Also, in novels...the Dispossessed is particularly interesting).

[danbrotherston]

Paying taxes != "beating up on".  Nobody is suggesting we literally eat the 500 thousandairs.

You’re focussing on my exact wording and ignoring the main point, which is that the income inequality problem isn’t primarily that there are lots of people who make 2-3 times the average. The main problem is that a tiny, almost invisible, fraction of people are thousands of times wealthier than typical people.

Yes, I completely agree this change to taxation doesn't solve billionaires or wealth inequality generally. And while that is one of the "main" problems in our society, I do think that the lack of progressive taxation on capital gains for high (but not extremely high) net worth individuals is ALSO a problem. And I disagree that progressive taxation is unfair in any way that the phrase "beating up" implies. It is simply paying your fair share.

I also don't think taxation would "solve" billionaires, but I don't think I can say anything else here without getting downvoted.

[dtkvictim]

Imagine thinking you’re entitled to pay less than others do for public services because your income is acquired a different way

I can't agree with that. Why should people who have earned more through their own volition be obligated to give a government a significantly larger sum of those earnings than others do? How is that fair?

You don't seem to have comprehended what they wrote. They didn't say more or less, they said differently. You're betraying an emotional response.

If I chose to guide my life in a way that has resulted in an abundance of wealth, that all belongs to me minus what at least should be fairly taxed.

And what is fair? Is it what you specifically decide, and not what the people who elect the government want? Sounds authoritarian.

If the government can't afford to do its job, then it should be making cuts where necessary and finding ways to earn more, rather than expecting those with more of it to give it to them.

If the people want more services or to maintain services that have become more expensive, the way to government "earns more" is by raising taxes. You can have your opinion on what is correct and worthwhile, but you don't seem to understand how the government is already funded. Not to mention the long term financial ramifications of cutting services or selling off assets.

I also find it absurd that many of the general population has also somehow got the idea into their head the whole "eat the rich" rhetoric, where there is almost some sort of psychological envy that makes them resent and hate wealthier people than them, to the point they have deluded themselves into thinking they should be entitled to some of that (through however the state would use it, if it were more heavily taxed).

I certainly agree that a frightening number of progressives view pulling everyone down to the lowest common denominator in the name of equality as "progress", which seems to be the mentality you're describing. But to use that to discard their motivation entirely leads you to a path equally as dogmatic and inflexible that the results will be no better. We live in a system where wealth begets wealth and political power. It's an unfair system that needs to be balanced with "unfair" taxation, or something similar, lest it spiral out of control.

[ac3r]

...

You don't seem to have comprehended what they wrote. They didn't say more or less, they said differently. You're betraying an emotional response.

...

And what is fair? Is it what you specifically decide, and not what the people who elect the government want? Sounds authoritarian.

...

If the people want more services or to maintain services that have become more expensive, the way to government "earns more" is by raising taxes. You can have your opinion on what is correct and worthwhile, but you don't seem to understand how the government is already funded. Not to mention the long term financial ramifications of cutting services or selling off assets.

...

I certainly agree that a frightening number of progressives view pulling everyone down to the lowest common denominator in the name of equality as "progress", which seems to be the mentality you're describing. But to use that to discard their motivation entirely leads you to a path equally as dogmatic and inflexible that the results will be no better. We live in a system where wealth begets wealth and political power. It's an unfair system that needs to be balanced with "unfair" taxation, or something similar, lest it spiral out of control.

I understood. They want my money. It doesn't matter if you make your money hourly or you sit on your arse in the sun day trading. It's still yours and ethically nobody should be entitled to any of that, although obviously as a modern civilization we do need taxes because we've forced ourselves into a situation where we need them.

Fair is taxing each citizen more or less equally with the exception of those who already live in poverty or exist on the precipice of it. Otherwise, we should all roughly pay an equal share. If the government can't figure out how to fairly tax 40,769,890 people (yeah I know they don't all pay tax, that's not the point though) in a way that provides enough money to fund what 40,769,890 people need then we have a bigger issue to deal with.

The government can "earn more" by not wasting what it is already given. Whether it's at the municipal, provincial or federal level we can spend less on bullshit like foreign aid, the military, diversity/equity/inclusion programs, useless infrastructure, debt that we shouldn't even have...blah blah. There's no reason we need to be spending close to 30 billion dollars each year on military defence, for example. In regards to DEI, I don't believe there is any real reason why us people who are legitimate minorities (I am Status Indian) should be entitled to a crutch...yeah YT colonized and tried to genocide us, but we've been our own people for thousands of years. We can make it on our own. Those are just random examples. We can also reform our economic system in a way to allow for people to have greater freedom to earn and - most importantly - keep their own money.

The issue really isn't wealth per se that's the issue. We make money out of thin air, after all. That's kinda why we're so fucked now. It's more that our governments don't know what the hell they're doing and yet somehow tens of millions of you out there defend their behaviour. There's a reason I'm politically an anarchist: I don't trust the government to do anything correctly and I sure as heck don't trust the average brain dead civilian to either.

It seems you would say that taxation is a burden. If so, having everyone pay the same amount in tax is an unfair burden on those who make less, because a larger portion of their available income is taken for that purpose.

Society is not equal; one way to try to remedy that is progressive taxation. Many people, whether laymen like myself, or economists or sociologists or philosophers, would call that a good thing.

Nah...I'm not against taxes. I'm against them being poorly spent. Obviously I don't think people who make 25'000 a year or less should be heavily taxed, because then you're just robbing them. But you can't simply take more from others to make up for shortfalls of how governments spend things unless maybe we're talking about billionaires with extreme wealth. But even then, things in Canada are a mess not because we're not taxing Changpeng Zhao or Arthur Irving - but because those we elect utter fools to govern us (which for me is an insane sentence to even type lmao).

[tomh009]

We should pay fair taxes as a population, but nobody should be forced to pay more because they have more. The wealthy and the less wealthy all use said public services on more or less equal terms, therefore we should be paying an equal share for it. And if the government needs more money to run the country they were entrusted to correctly run, then they should figure it out. If it can't do that, dissolve it because they are clearly a bad government.

OK, so you are opposed to progressive taxation. Technically, if everyone should pay the same amount, then the federal flat "headcount tax" should be about $9000 per person (man, woman, child etc) regardless of income. And maybe $3-4000 more for provincial tax. Do you think this would be a better solution than progressive taxation?

[Vojnik_Vahaj]

Progressive tax is definitly good, but as for very wealthy individuals, there should be an added luxury tax. You want to buy a sportscar? 100% tax. You want to buy a giant mansion? 100% tax. You want a designer handbag/clothing? 100% tax. You want to import a luxury good? You're getting taxed for that too.

Obviously I'm exaggerated about the percentage, but its an indirect way of getting them.

[ijmorlan]

Progressive tax is definitly good, but as for very wealthy individuals, there should be an added luxury tax. You want to buy a sportscar? 100% tax. You want to buy a giant mansion? 100% tax. You want a designer handbag/clothing? 100% tax. You want to import a luxury good? You're getting taxed for that too.

Obviously I'm exaggerated about the percentage, but its an indirect way of getting them.

Define “sportscar”. Define “giant mansion”. Define “designer”. Define “luxury”.

I’m not actually saying that a luxury tax is totally impossible, but it’s very difficult to make something like that actually do what you want it to do.

[ac3r]

Taxing people who can afford to buy a nice car or outfit just to "get them" is a terribly nonsensical and almost childish way to look at the problem and not a solution. You don't balance the national or local budget by slapping huge taxes on someone who happens to have a bigger house than anyone else on the street. That's not going to bring in any meaningful amount of money and would likely just hurt the economy as people who have money quickly realize that maybe Canada isn't the best place to be.

Solving our budgetary issues is going to require a lot more than slapping luxury taxes on a handful people who can afford nice clothes and a car. Electing people who know what they're doing would be a good start.

[ijmorlan]

Taxing people who can afford to buy a nice car or outfit just to "get them" is a terribly nonsensical and almost childish way to look at the problem and not a solution. You don't balance the national or local budget by slapping huge taxes on someone who happens to have a bigger house than anyone else on the street. That's not going to bring in any meaningful amount of money and would likely just hurt the economy as people who have money quickly realize that maybe Canada isn't the best place to be.

Solving our budgetary issues is going to require a lot more than slapping luxury taxes on a handful people who can afford nice clothes and a car. Electing people who know what they're doing would be a good start.

Well said. Unfortunately, the bold bit doesn’t seem to be an option this time around.

[danbrotherston]

Progressive tax is definitly good, but as for very wealthy individuals, there should be an added luxury tax. You want to buy a sportscar? 100% tax. You want to buy a giant mansion? 100% tax. You want a designer handbag/clothing? 100% tax. You want to import a luxury good? You're getting taxed for that too.

Obviously I'm exaggerated about the percentage, but its an indirect way of getting them.

Define “sportscar”. Define “giant mansion”. Define “designer”. Define “luxury”.

I’m not actually saying that a luxury tax is totally impossible, but it’s very difficult to make something like that actually do what you want it to do.

Indeed! Like this is part of why the US has gargantuan trucks as suburban commuter mobiles....because it's a way of getting them around certain laws.

So if you tax "sportscars" 100% then the next Porche 911 will be built on a light truck frame.

Why does it make more sense to tax "luxury goods" than it does to tax high income individuals.

[ijmorlan]

Why does it make more sense to tax "luxury goods" than it does to tax high income individuals.

We could turn around the idea of a luxury tax and argue that at least some of the people buying the “luxury” goods actually need them, whereas the high-income person who isn’t buying them clearly doesn’t need the money.

So extremely high income tax rate, but the cost of all luxury goods is deductible!

[Vojnik_Vahaj]

Define “sportscar”. Define “giant mansion”. Define “designer”. Define “luxury”.

I’m not actually saying that a luxury tax is totally impossible, but it’s very difficult to make something like that actually do what you want it to do.

Indeed! Like this is part of why the US has gargantuan trucks as suburban commuter mobiles....because it's a way of getting them around certain laws.

So if you tax "sportscars" 100% then the next Porche 911 will be built on a light truck frame.

Why does it make more sense to tax "luxury goods" than it does to tax high income individuals.

I might be wrong, but there are a ton of tax loopholes rich people use so no matter how much tax they owe, they'll find a way to get around it and not pay. We obviously need to fix the system but that seems unrealistic atm

[ac3r]

I might be wrong, but there are a ton of tax loopholes rich people use so no matter how much tax they owe, they'll find a way to get around it and not pay. We obviously need to fix the system but that seems unrealistic atm

There really aren't a ton of them. It's possible to lower the amount of taxes paid in many ways and possible to avoid some entirely, but it's not an easy thing to do. It's also precarious legally, so most people out there are not going to opt to do something that could result in having money taken away or face prosecution for. People in general just do not really like having to have their money be taxed. Every person out there looks at their finances, gets to the Tax and Deductions sections and sighs.

But contrary to the fact that there are countless economic philosophies that exist in human culture and people will develop their own views of what they see as ideal, we are all more or less constantly forced to participate in whatever system exists in our state by being held in bondage under the threat of force and/or violence should you attempt to not play by the rules of the state you reside in (with the concept of a state itself already being a complete abstraction as well). A state can't exist without taxation, so they've developed pretty good ways to ensure people do not find ways to not pay their fare share. There are very few actual loopholes remaining that make it easy these days. Most wealthy people are just wealthy because they have financial literacy, not because they're using tax loopholes or perhaps other schemes. If they'll chase someone down for years for owing say 1500 dollars, you can be assured the CRA does everything they can to chase down people with even money who may be dodging taxes or something.

If the issue is whether we should tax them more, well, that's a different issue. On that, I'd argue the government should learn what the hell they're doing with the tax they already do get. There is an insane amount of waste. There is also a lot of questionable reasoning to what they choose to tax. One example is the carbon tax is one contentious issue in Canadian society for some years now with all sides providing scientific, economic and political views both in support and against said tax. Whatever the case, a lot of our money we end up giving them isn't being spent too well whether it's at the local, provincial or federal levels. They should be fixing that to optimize what they currently have before seeking to take more.