Taxes And Corporations

As I've pointed out before... Taxes in most parts of Canada on corporations (save, I think, Quebec) are lower than taxes on corporations in most parts of the USA. Much lower. And yet we're constantly told that high corporate taxes are killing our economy... Despite our economy growing as the USA's shrinks!

Well of coarse taxes are tooo high on Corporations , we will be told that long after they aren't paying any and running the country ! When Are people going to wake up and realize the only shareholder that matters in Canada is the people , all 33+ million of us ! Not just the Greedy ! To Hell with the Free Market System and Globalization , Lets take Canada back Now!

<br><br> And what about corporate subsidies? <br><br> Not only do they (the owners of the corporations)want to pay ever less in taxes but they aren't shy about lining up at the trough. <br><br> As an example, check out the credits (as in TAX CREDITS) at the end of almost any movie you watch on TV these days. <br><br> <b>That is but one example.</b> <br><br> Then if that wasn't enough, if your corporation is big enough to afford an offshore location you can bring into Canada <b>taxfree</b> dividends from the Barbadoes, as Paul Martin knows full well. <br><br> And they continue crying for more. <br><br> I haven't mentionned many corporate goodies (like 'working lunches') that officers/owners of corporations get free. And they reduce coporate taxable income too. <br><br> Thing is if they really got it all they'd put themselves out of business since nobody would be able to buy their products (unless they could export it all). So there are some limits overall. <br><br>

I`ve said it all along, tax the rich and the corporations. Then we can build a more just society. The alternative is a society of haves and have nots, where the haves close the doors of oppurtunity on the have nots, and more poverty breeds more violence, sickness, crime, etc. This can`t be what we want, eh?

---
Dave Ruston

We don't want it (you say and I agree) but I think poverty has definitely increased in this country over the last 3 or 4 decades. And all 'established parties' have swung to the right IMHO.

It certainly is time that corporations paid proper taxes, and paid to clean up their messes, we the people are paying through the nose for clean-ups, for corporate welfare, remember when Irving Oil was subsidized to take down their shipping yard, while laying off all the workers? Give me a break how much money have they made over the years and we had to subsidize them so they could turn the shipping yard into something else!

Then we have the 'rich' well it isn't just the tax breaks, it's the write offs, they can write off their employees through their corporations, so the nanny, housekeeper, etc is a write-off while the poor, who also work must do their own housekeeping and find a reasonable day-care or pay a friend or relative and that is not a write-off, cause they can't pay much and the friend is also poor and doesn't want the extra income. So children of rich get allowances which their parents call employment income, the poor don't...the list goes on and on. It isn't just the imbalance of taxes it's the entire attitude towards the middle-class (soon to be poor); the rich need the services in order to work, the poor can figure it out for themselves; most people struggling at minimum wage would love to afford these write-offs; and what about the stay-at-home parent, no write off there, so you are rewarded if you let someone else raise your kids, but if you do it yourself you get squat!

We need to change the way we think, we need to consider what is important to us as a society. I think stay at home parents are doing the job they should be, one of the most important jobs there is, to help form the next generation and that should rate very high, if we want a productive society. Not saying you shouldn't have the choice, but it shouldn't impoverish you to do it.

I am not saying you shouldn't be able to get ahead, to work hard and form a company or corporation, but not on the backs of the average citizen. Everyone gets upset at Welfare for the average person, but nobody seems to mind the corporate welfare, which is rampant. IMO

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

Not to dampen the arguments (I agree with higher corporate taxes), but I'm having trouble with the stats: the 46 and 47 in 1950 doesn't add up to a hundred. Where did the other 7% of tax revenue come from? I don't doubt that corporate tax has dropped significantly since 1950, but I'm curious to know where the other sources of tax revenue are.

A flat tax, people! Applied to gross incomes, no deductions, no writeoffs, no rebates or refunds. Simple and fair. Say 5%?

---
RickW

These were numbers that were stated by an individual that called in to the simulcast I was watching.

As I said in the post, he told us these numbers came from Revenue Canada.

The fact that they don't add up to 100% doesn't bother me, since there are probably other sources, but I am no expert so I really can't answer your question.

Regarding a flat tax, the best example I have seen tied all social programs, government spending in all areas, and the total came to something like 41% or so.

That may seem high, but we pay more than that now, so if you would like more info on flat tax visit this link. This is referred to as a Universal Basic Income (UBI.

http://www.basicincome.com/basic_model.htm

Enjoy, it's a lot of reading, but interesting ideas.



---
"Arrogance in Politics is unacceptable"
Jim Callaghan
Minden, Ontario
705-286-1860
www.misterc.ca

this UBI -if I understand it correctly - would mean a CUT in welfare payments in BC of FIFTY PERCENT! Present payments aren't enough for basic living expenses.

A Rev Can tax employee speaks out at:

www.angelfire.com/tx5/taxbible

We should be scared.

I'm not sure what welfare payments are in BC, but if you click on the TABLE link, you'll see a breakdown of after-tax income at the most basic level.

In Ontario, welfare is $520 per month, total about $6K a year. Not enough to live on, for sure.

This is just one example of a universal income, there are more ideas out there for a flat tax.

Just remember that a flat tax has to be high enough to bring in the same amount that we spend, with enough of a buffer to cover unexpected costs. Without that, deficit city.

Nobody said it was going to be simple.


---
"Arrogance in Politics is unacceptable"
Jim Callaghan
Minden, Ontario
705-286-1860
www.misterc.ca

Regarding the "Flat Tax" proposal: this is commonly promoted by the wealthy as yet another way for them to escape taxation. Here's why:

1) There is nothing "flat" about a flat tax. Taxing 5 percent of someone making $20,000 a year and 5 percent of someone making $20,000,000 a year means that the first is paying a much, much higher PROPORTIONAL percentage of his income in taxes than the second. There is nothing fair about "flat".

2) The rich usually don't make their money the same way the rest of us do. You and I rely on pay cheques - the wealthy rely more heavily on dividends, capital gains, inheritance, etc...which, you will notice, the biggest flat tax proponents want abolished. (Coming from the States, I'm not familiar with how this works in Canada...can someone enlighten me?)

The "solution" is the one all democracies came up with in the post-war years: progressive taxation. In the States, there have been studies indicating that when the U.S. had the most progressive forms of taxation - i.e., higher taxation on wealth, less on income; higher taxes on the rich, lower taxes on the poor, greater reliance on corporate taxation, less on taxing workers as we did from the post-war until the mid-1970's - there was less income inequality (duh!), faster economic growth in ALL income brackets, a truly 'shared' prosperity, and a greater engagement in democratic structures by a larger electorate at both the local and national levels. In other words, when the 'wealth of the nation' is shared by all (or felt to be shared by all), there is a greater enfranchisement...

What a concept! All along I thought this was why Canada has been consistantly given a greater "quality of life" rating than the United States! It deserves that rating...but will lose it and not get it back if it tries to emulate America's "winner take all" mentality.

(Interesting sideline: some of the American Founding Fathers - Jefferson in particular - believed in ONLY taxing profits, not income. If he'd lived another ninety some years, things might have developed VERY differently down here).

-Randy from Rhode Island

I love the idea of taxing profits.

Somehow, I don't think that would happen today, unless Nader or Kucinich wins the election.


---
"Arrogance in Politics is unacceptable"
Jim Callaghan
Minden, Ontario
705-286-1860
www.misterc.ca