« From the podcasting front | Main | Hmmmm »
It smells like victory. Here is how the Finance Minister sees it.
Canadians pay too much tax, and the tax burden on individuals, families and businesses is still too great and must be reduced
Should I mention that one way to relieve the tax burden on families (i.e. a great way) is income splitting. Your welcome.
(Powered by Google)
This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on November 10, 2006 11:14 AM.
The previous post in this blog was From the podcasting front.
The next post in this blog is Hmmmm.
Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.
Comments (19)
I completely agree!
Posted by Sara | November 10, 2006 11:27 AM
Posted on November 10, 2006 11:27
Gee you think thee will be the Liberal tax cuts from last November? The one they reversed earlier this year, thus raising out taxes?
I can hardly wait to get back to where I was before the Cons formed the government….
Posted by Mike | November 10, 2006 12:17 PM
Posted on November 10, 2006 12:17
I would dispute the prime minister’s assertion that our taxes our too high, but if this can be done without eviscerating social services and putting us into deficit, I have no problem with it.
Posted by James Bow | November 10, 2006 12:43 PM
Posted on November 10, 2006 12:43
Mike’s math:
GST cut + income tax cut + several other new deductions = income tax cut
Hope you’re not an accountant.
Posted by Alan | November 10, 2006 12:52 PM
Posted on November 10, 2006 12:52
Well, it’s accurate math, Alan, for Mike’s tax bracket. The poorer taxpayers saw their taxes go up thanks to the repealed tax cuts, despite the cut in the GST. I personally believe that any tax cuts should be aimed first at the poorest among us.
Posted by James Bow | November 10, 2006 1:57 PM
Posted on November 10, 2006 13:57
The tax cuts promised by the Liberals weren’t repealed; they were never legislated. Taxpayers got a one-year exceptional rate.
Posted by lrC | November 10, 2006 2:14 PM
Posted on November 10, 2006 14:14
Besides, if the government passes a budget with the same or lesser rates and same or greater personal exemption, it’ll be a dead issue and the only remaining fact will be the $134 (or whatever the exact amount is) out-of-pocket for this year.
Posted by lrC | November 10, 2006 2:15 PM
Posted on November 10, 2006 14:15
Don’t forget the Canada Employment Tax Credit either. For anyone with paid payroll-based employment, the impact of this exceeds that 0.5% change in the
Posted by TorontoCrawler | November 10, 2006 2:37 PM
Posted on November 10, 2006 14:37
less than $36k rate.
Posted by TorontoCrawler | November 10, 2006 2:39 PM
Posted on November 10, 2006 14:39
Jim Flaherty yesterday:
“I just think most Canadians are realistic people and they realize we have to pay taxes in this country to pay for valuable social services: health care, education and infrastructure,” he said.
You’d think our Finance Minister would stay consistent for at least 24 hours. Maybe the income trust fiasco has scrambled what few neurons Jim has.
Posted by Greg | November 10, 2006 3:27 PM
Posted on November 10, 2006 15:27
Here’s the link, if you don’t believe me (and why should you?).
Posted by Greg | November 10, 2006 3:30 PM
Posted on November 10, 2006 15:30
Sorry, Friday syndrome: http://accidentaldeliberations.blogspot.com/2006/11/save-this-quote.html
Posted by Greg | November 10, 2006 3:31 PM
Posted on November 10, 2006 15:31
What is inconsistent. The fiscal house is in surplus, huge surplus. That means the gov’t is paying for all those programs we love and has way too much money left over. That surplus represents the gov’t taking too much tax revenue in - over taxation. The Conservatives have decided to give that money (or some of it) back or rather they have decided to stop taking so much in the first place.
Posted by Greg Staples | November 10, 2006 4:41 PM
Posted on November 10, 2006 16:41
It simply amazes me that the same people who gushed how wonderful the Liberals were, as they promised the same $50/500 million, whatever, to Torontonians for a “revitalized waterfront” for the sixth time, are the same people poo-pooing the Conservatives’ genuine attempts to cut taxes. Simply amazes me.
Seen any of the following? You want the Liberals’ 2006 “promises”? http://www.thiscanada.com/2005/11/26/big-bribe-spree-2006/
You want their 2004 electyion promises? http://www.thiscanada.com/2004/07/05/tracking-martins-promises/
So please, please, let’s hear no more about how those horrible Conservatives are going to make the “wrong tax cut”. Can’t anyone stand prosperity?
Posted by Erik Sorenson | November 10, 2006 4:41 PM
Posted on November 10, 2006 16:41
Your argument is based on a false premise, Erik. I never gushed about the Liberals failed promises. It simply amazes me that, whenever the Conservatives get criticized for something, the best that some people can say in their defense is to point to the performance of their pretty crappy predecessors. Like that justifies what they do, or is anything they’d find worthy of being compared to. Set your sights a little higher, would you please?
Posted by James Bow | November 10, 2006 5:01 PM
Posted on November 10, 2006 17:01
Chipping away at the lowest bracket like the Liberals were doing is not really the right way to reduce the tax burden on the lowest earners. The govt should raise the personal exemption — and raise it a good amount. People earning $15,000 per year shouldn’t be paying income tax.
And, even though it may not be PC to say it, some relief should be directed at higher income earners by raising the other brackets as well. The top bracket kicks in at around $100,000 per year (I think). People earning that amount of money are doing all right, but they are not ‘rich’. Reducing the taxes that group pays is not giving tax relief to the rich.
Income splitting would also be a good approach.
Posted by peter | November 10, 2006 6:21 PM
Posted on November 10, 2006 18:21
I’d take more brackets as well. The increase should be more incremental than it is. Why can’t they simplify the system to: no taxes on your first $15,000 per year, 5% on the $1000 after that, 6% on the $1000 after that and so on, to the current maximum income tax load?
Posted by James Bow | November 10, 2006 9:32 PM
Posted on November 10, 2006 21:32
“Well, it’s accurate math, Alan, for Mike’s tax bracket. The poorer taxpayers saw their taxes go up thanks to the repealed tax cuts, despite the cut in the GST. I personally believe that any tax cuts should be aimed first at the poorest among us.”
You ignore or didn’t get my actual point, James. The so called “repealed” tax cuts, once implemented, in addition to the other tax relief, equals a greater dent in the horrendous tax burden.
The poorest among us pay very little income tax. But that doesn’t fit with your Robin Hood socialist narrative, does it? Cuts to the GST are of the most value for the very lowest income earners, as they pay virtually no income tax in the first place.
Check out the actual figures on how much of the tax burden is borne by those in the top 10% of earnings. The top 10% earn 12.6% of the income, but pay 52.6% of the taxes. But I forgot, it’s their social duty to bear five times their fair share of taxes because they actually earn money, which is of course, a bad thing.
I can’t stand the smell of smug, tax loving patronizers of the “poor” at any time of the day. Inflating the jobless rate and creating a state-dependent population is never the answer. Well it’s not the right answer anyway.
Phew. Somebody open a window. This joint smells like a moldy social contract.
Posted by Alan | November 13, 2006 9:03 AM
Posted on November 13, 2006 09:03
life insurance rates
Posted by life insurance rates | November 18, 2006 8:14 AM
Posted on November 18, 2006 08:14