babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » labour and consumption   » T4 Season-Taxpayer Rage

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: T4 Season-Taxpayer Rage
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 19 February 2002 08:57 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Just recieved my T4 today, and I am disgusted with the amount in box 22. I pay more in taxes now than I grossed in my last job.

But tax cuts are not going to quell my taxpayer rage. The high taxes are not the problem. If they were, I could find a job in the states in two hours. The problem is that we in Canada pay through the noses in tax, yet we're not getting value for the money.

We have one of the most punitive tax rates on the planet, and what do we get for it? Patients shipped down to the US for treatment, because our hospitals can't handle them, 10 hour waits in the emergency room and 12 month queues for an MRI, Canadian troops spraypainting their equipment brown, severe shortages of low income housing in Toronto, deteriorating highways and transit service, etc etc etc etc.

Where does the money go? I'd gladly pay these taxes if I didn't have to read another story about patients being put up in broom closets at the hospital, or hear a single mother with two children tell me of her 4 year wait to get on subsidized housing.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
SamL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2199

posted 19 February 2002 09:07 PM      Profile for SamL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
An example of the fine use of our taxes: GAGLIANO
From: Cambridge, MA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 19 February 2002 09:18 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You mean tax revenue has been spent on a yellowish Italian liqueur?

Oh.

Never mind.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 19 February 2002 09:52 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think the tax laws are great.

This year, I'm going to change my name to Bronfman so I don't have to pay any tax at all.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Laedifox
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1925

posted 20 February 2002 12:37 AM      Profile for Laedifox     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
*snerk* Death to the taxman!!
From: deadheading for the next few centuries | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 20 February 2002 03:27 AM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Like all other other disappearing money, it goes into The Sock. (Tom Holt, 'Flying Dutch')

This isn't tax rage; this is tax peeve. At the peeved stage, we grumble and complain to one another, but pay up. At the rage stage (catchy; somebody oughta make a song) we'll be marching on Ottawa, with pitchforks.


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Victor Von Mediaboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 554

posted 20 February 2002 10:20 AM      Profile for Victor Von Mediaboy   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
At the rage stage (catchy; somebody oughta make a song) we'll be marching on Ottawa, with pitchforks.


Fat chance. Canadians only get to the rage stage when the figure skaters win silver.


From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 20 February 2002 10:56 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This is a relatively serious thread about paying taxes, so I think I'll move it to earning and spending - they could use a little traffic!

That way we won't contaminate the purity of this silliness, drivel, and banter forum with actual (gasp!) serious discussions. Heh.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 20 February 2002 10:57 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There we go. Continue raging about taxes here.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 20 February 2002 12:02 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Damned taxes!

are we allowed to say "damned" here?


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 983

posted 20 February 2002 12:07 PM      Profile for dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I must admit that I know nothing about filing my taxes. I usually try to do it on my own but find that if I were to work it out five times I'd get 5 drastically different results. Instead I just send something in and let them fix it. Problem with this is that Revenue Canada doesn't seem to be much better at figuring out taxes than I am. Each year I receive one or two revisions from RC which usually end with me owing them more money.
From: pleasant, unemotional conversation aids digestion | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 20 February 2002 12:21 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
We have one of the most punitive tax rates on the planet.

[ February 20, 2002: Message edited by: clockwork ]


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 20 February 2002 12:37 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, perhaps I stand corrected. But does this chart take into account, for example, the 15% tax on goods and services in Ontario (7% federal 8% provincial), as well as other factors such as capital gains tax, taxable benefits (group term life insurance, health care, parking, etc.)?
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 20 February 2002 12:42 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hey, I post my graphs, you post yours.

I thought the compliant was on income taxes, thus I looked for a chart comparing personal income tax rates.


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 20 February 2002 12:56 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
i don't need no stinkin' graphs to be pig bitin' mad about my taxes!

It's difficult though, to break down taxation to just a bar graph. The tax laws are a lot more complex than just, say 30% off of gross pay. There's taxable benefits that increase your taxable gross (such as group term life insurance). Revenue Canada tries to get it's hands on as much as possible. For example, parking in your employer's parking lot is considered a taxable benefit, and your employer is supposed to determine what that parking costs, and add it to your income.

Another interesting tax difference between Canada and the US is that in the states, interest paid on your mortgage is tax deductible. In the first years of home ownership, when the bulk of your mortgage payment goes to interest, this can be significant break on income tax. Canada is sadly behind on this one.

[ February 20, 2002: Message edited by: sheep ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 20 February 2002 01:20 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
i don't need no stinkin' graphs to be pig bitin' mad about my taxes!

I think that is part of the problem. I could take a gander down Stateside and I’d run into a cookie cutter clone of you there, even though they have some of the lowest tax rates in the industrialized world.

Even in straight public spending to GDP ratio’s, we aren’t at the top. I’d post a graph, but… blah, what’s the point? Why waste my time? I'll got other time wasters to attend to.


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 20 February 2002 01:22 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I could take a gander down Stateside and I’d run into a cookie cutter clone of you there, even though they have some of the lowest tax rates in the industrialized world.

You will be hard pressed to find someone quite like me anywhere in the world


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 20 February 2002 01:33 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
You will be hard pressed to find someone quite like me anywhere in the world

Well… if you'd like to think of yourself as that unique… sure. But the genetic differences and the expressions of those differences between you and me (or anyone else, for that matter) are quite small, I can assure you.

[ February 20, 2002: Message edited by: clockwork ]


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 20 February 2002 01:38 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
But my mom says I am special
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 20 February 2002 01:42 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ah, but my mother does, too (say I'm special, not you). Again, I think it might be the same genetic response.
From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 20 February 2002 01:48 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And let's all raise our glasses to Garrison Keillor's Lake Wobegon, where all the children are above average!
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Secret Agent Style
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2077

posted 20 February 2002 01:48 PM      Profile for Secret Agent Style        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I wish I made enough money to complain about how much income tax I'm paying.

To me, income tax is just another deduction off my paycheque, most of which I get back as a refund after I file. I don't really pay attention to the amount that comes off my cheque.

I just figure taxes are part of living in one of the greatest countries in the world.

High rent, I'll complain about.

[ February 20, 2002: Message edited by: Andy Social ]


From: classified | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 20 February 2002 05:32 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I must admit that I know nothing about filing my taxes. I usually try to do it on my own but find that if I were to work it out five times I'd get 5 drastically different results.

Do what I do. Use a tax program.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Victor Von Mediaboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 554

posted 20 February 2002 05:35 PM      Profile for Victor Von Mediaboy   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
KPMG (I believe) does my taxes. My dad still takes care of all that stuff.
From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 983

posted 20 February 2002 05:35 PM      Profile for dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I've tried... somehow I even manage to bung that up. Or at least what Revenue Canada sends me is not the result I'm expecting.

Last year I filed over the phone. No better luck.


From: pleasant, unemotional conversation aids digestion | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 20 February 2002 06:03 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
*chuckle*

This year I'll be doing my taxes by hand because I find the tax program I'm using to be klunky and unreliable in accurately determining my taxes owing.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 20 February 2002 08:54 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm pissed off this year... they got rid of CoolTax!!!

[ February 20, 2002: Message edited by: clockwork ]


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pimji
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 228

posted 21 February 2002 01:16 AM      Profile for Pimji   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Try to find a down sized auditor from rev can.

Paying the taxes isn't half as bad as trying to fill out the forms. Sheesh.


From: South of Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pimji
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 228

posted 21 February 2002 01:21 AM      Profile for Pimji   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm so mad that I have to waste all my money on taxes when I could be driving a big honkin' SUV. There otta be a public outcry.
Oh wait. There is!

From: South of Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pimji
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 228

posted 21 February 2002 01:24 AM      Profile for Pimji   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm being sarcastic. I hope you all know.
From: South of Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 21 February 2002 02:48 AM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I've never had that much trouble filling out the forms myself. Granted, I don't have an unusually complicated tax situation such as a self-employed person or someone with capital gains/losses.
From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 21 February 2002 05:54 AM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hey clockwork, I wouldn't mind seeing that public spending to GDP graph if it's handy.
From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 21 February 2002 01:58 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The OECD site is down, which is the first site I look at for stats like this (where I got the other graph). My PDF reader is temperamental, and it’s not loading World Bank files. The Economist country listings has a government consumption as a percentage of GDP, figure, but this is federal government stat, I gather, and not total government spending. I did find this, though:

I also found a graph plotting the average total government spending of 53 countries (which, it didn’t say... are there 53 industrialized countries out there?) and showed this figure to be, in 2000, about just under 40% (but I forgot where I saw the graph now). Does this enlighten?

And since we are complaining about taxes here, someone has yet to bring up the obvious point, beautifully illustrated in my last graph: us single income earners are overtaxed. Like, I don’t get it. People choose to have kids. They should understand that kids cost money. So why should they pay less tax then us? What’s up with that? Why should I subsidize someone elses bratty, stupid kids?

[ February 21, 2002: Message edited by: clockwork ]


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Victor Von Mediaboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 554

posted 21 February 2002 02:01 PM      Profile for Victor Von Mediaboy   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
People choose to have kids. They should understand that kids cost money. So why should they pay less tax then us? What’s up with that? Why should I subsidize someone elses bratty, stupid kids?

Unless you're being sarcastic, HEAR HEAR!


From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Debra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 117

posted 21 February 2002 02:05 PM      Profile for Debra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
People choose to have kids. They should understand that kids cost money. So why should they pay less tax then us? What’s up with that? Why should I subsidize someone elses bratty, stupid kids?

It's a circle of life thing. One generation subsidies another to then in turn in old age be subsidized by them.

You may now play the theme from Lion King.


From: The only difference between graffiti & philosophy is the word fuck... | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 21 February 2002 02:20 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I should scan a couple of charts showing the income and payroll tax burden of the OECD nations. The data will be a bit dated (1996...) but it shows something VERY interesting: Canada had the lowest payroll tax burden of any of them.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 21 February 2002 02:26 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
please do DrConway, that would be very interesting to see.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 21 February 2002 02:59 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
But earthmother, I also subsidize old people, too. I can post a graph of which age demographic eats up the most government spending, too, you know (hint: it's why, at least in Czechoslovakia, smokers actually save the government money, heehee)

I'm subsidizing people's kids, people's parents, people's businesses... the list doesn't end! I'm tax oppressed!

quote:
Unless you're being sarcastic

Now, when I have ever been sarcastic?

Canada’s uncompetitive tax situation


--

Source

[ February 21, 2002: Message edited by: clockwork ]


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Victor Von Mediaboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 554

posted 21 February 2002 03:02 PM      Profile for Victor Von Mediaboy   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Kinda makes one wonder why Ford is closing down the Oakville truck plant.
From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 21 February 2002 03:07 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Note the * and the **

These figures include the amount of employer-paid social security contributions.

and the Canadian figures are adjusted to the American dollar.

Thus, despite the graph, an autoworker in Ontario could very well wind up with less take home pay than an autoworker in Ohio.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 21 February 2002 03:08 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Those two graphs have nothing to do with a workers pay...
From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 21 February 2002 03:32 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Why is the second one titled Employer Payroll Tax levies then?
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 21 February 2002 03:42 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The government levies payroll taxes, which the employer pays.
From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 21 February 2002 03:50 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
An Employer Payroll Tax Levy is the amount that an employer is required to withhold and remit to the government off of each payroll. It is the total remittance including deductions withheld from the employeee (income tax, CPP, EI) as well as the monies the employer is required to remit (matching portions of CPP, EI, OHIP etc.).
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 21 February 2002 04:03 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I thought they were seperate things.

Calling know-it-alls!!! Help, help!

edited: why would payroll taxes include personal income tax deductions?

[ February 21, 2002: Message edited by: clockwork ]


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 21 February 2002 04:17 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
why would payroll taxes include personal income tax deductions?

Because an employer is required to withhold your income tax and needs to determine your personal tax deduction eligibility . When you submit your TD1 to your employer, this determines your taxation status in regard to how your payroll taxes are calculated. You submit requests for reduction of income taxes at source for things like alimony payments, directly to your employer, who bears the responisbility to withhold and remit to the government on your behalf.

edited to add

Whoops, I mean, after the CCRA has approved your request for a reduction in taxes at source, you then submit to your employer

[ February 21, 2002: Message edited by: sheep ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 21 February 2002 04:35 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
But then why call it "payroll taxes" as opposed to what it really is, income taxes. I can tell my employer to deduct more money than specified... does that mean I'm increasing the payroll tax? I didn't think I had the power to levy taxes...
From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 21 February 2002 04:41 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Basically they call it payroll tax because it's tax that's coming off of your paycheque, through your employer's payroll.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 21 February 2002 05:03 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:

Social Security Contributions and Payroll Taxes. Contributions to the federal unemployment plan are 4.2% of employee wages for the employer, up to a maximum contribution of $Cdn 1,780.00, and 3% for the employee, up to a maximum contribution of $Cdn 1,271.40. Contributions to retirement pensions under the Canada Pension Plan or its Québec equivalent are 2.7% of employee wages for both the employer and the employee, up to a maximum contribution of $Cdn 850.50. For self-employed individuals, the rate is 5% and the maximum contribution $Cdn 1,701.00. Contributions to health insurance plans and workers' compensation funds are also payable; amounts vary depending on the province.

Source

Okay, I think there is a misunderstanding. Payroll taxes, I gather, have to do with CPP and what not (but not income tax). But it is the employer's contribution, not the employee's. I contribute my premiums, and the employer contributes as well. The employer contribution are payroll taxes.


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 21 February 2002 05:17 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Revenue Canada Employer's Guide to Taxation

Perhaps we do have a misunderstanding in terms. Payroll Taxes and Payroll Deductions are basically interchangeable terms. They refer to the deductions that an employer is required to withhold, which are basically CIT, EI, CPP, QPP and the NWT Payroll Tax.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 21 February 2002 05:38 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
  • these deductions along with your share of CPP contributions and EI premiums that you have to pay throughout the year on your employees' behalf (see the guide called Remitting Payroll Deductions);

(RevCan’s emphasis, not mine)

Payroll deductions and payroll taxes are two separate things. An employer does withold employee premiums, but those are not employer payroll taxes.

I'm right I tells ya! Believe in me and I will show you the promised land!

[ February 21, 2002: Message edited by: clockwork ]


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 21 February 2002 05:47 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sorry clockwork, I do this sh*t for a living
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 21 February 2002 05:56 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Okay, maybe I’m not right. To tell you the truth, if I was going to lead you to the Promised Land, you’d probably end up in Newmarket. Maybe payroll taxes do include the employee’s deductions, too. But, the graph is specifically referring to employer’s share of those payroll taxes as per the *.

I got to be right somewhere, here. I do pay taxes for a living... er...


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 21 February 2002 11:21 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hey, until there's one tax law for everyone, our tax system is nothing more than theft.

Tax deductions for kids? WOW. What a scandle.

I'd also like to be able to get deductions for the depreciation of my household appliances, my vehicle, my gas, my lunches, my work clothes, but apparently, being working class I'm not allowed those goodies that other, more equal people are given.

THEFT THEFT THEFT THEFT THEFT.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 22 February 2002 01:32 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Tommy, you have a kindred spirit.

Ok, I see you guys have hashed out the tax thing, but permit me to barge in and be technical and maybe redundant.

Income tax is strictly defined as a levy on your gross income.

Payroll tax is a separate tax, levied (usually at a flat rate) for a specific purpose. In general the distinguishing characteristic of a payroll tax is that there is an employer/employee split in the payroll tax so that part of the payroll tax is met by the employer and part of it is met by the employee in the form of additional deductions.

All clear? Good.

I found some updated data from 2000 that shows the G7 countries and their relative tax burdens.

[ February 22, 2002: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 22 February 2002 07:51 AM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Okay, the OECD site is back up... this are total government outlays as a percentage of GDP in 2000. (didn't come in a graph and I didn't feel like making up a graph)

Australia 32.6
Austria 47.9
Belgium 46.7
Canada 37.7
Czech Republic 45.8
Denmark 49.9
Finland 43.9
France 51.0
Germany 43.3
Greece 52.3
Hungary 48.2
Iceland 38.5
Ireland 29.3
Italy 44.4
Japan 36.6
Korea 23.1
Luxembourg 38.1
Netherlands 41.6
New Zealand 38.6
Norway 40.8
Poland 43.8
Portugal 40.8
Spain 38.8
Sweden 52.7
Switzerland ..
United Kingdom 37.0
United States 29.9
Euro area 44.8
Total of above European Union countries 43.9
Total of above OECD countries 36.6


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 23 February 2002 10:29 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Don’t mind me…...

Actually, while I'm dicking around here, if someone would like to explain to me why there is all this whitespace between the table and the first "??" it would be much appreciated.

??














Test
h1h2
r1c1.....r1c2
r2c1r2c2....

??

[ February 23, 2002: Message edited by: clockwork ]

[ February 23, 2002: Message edited by: clockwork ]

[ February 24, 2002: Message edited by: clockwork ]


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 25 February 2002 01:39 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Charts, charts, charts. How fun.

First up: Payroll taxes in G7 countries

Consumption taxes in G7 countries

Corporate taxes in G7 countries

[ February 25, 2002: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
R. J. Dunnill
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1148

posted 25 February 2002 04:54 PM      Profile for R. J. Dunnill   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No offense, Doc, but those charts you've supplied refer to a period 10 years ago. Do you have anything more current?

RD


From: Surrey, B.C. | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 25 February 2002 05:50 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The reason I posted that data is to augment my 2000 data, and to point out that it is not a recent trend that Canada has the lowest "JOB KILLING" payroll taxes that right-wingers whinge about like a bloody dog howling at the moon.

Gee, maybe if they realized the USA has generally higher payroll taxes they'd shut the hell up and ask if Alan Greenspan's relatively looser monetary policy might just have something to do with the USA's lower unemployment rate rather than their bogeyman of payroll taxes.

As well, one of the charts shows data that's not in the 2000 charts and that's the consumption tax revenue levels. As you can see they're rather hefty in the G7 except for Japan and to some extent, the USA - primarily due to the USA's lack of a national sales tax and Japan's reliance on income taxes to finance government revenues.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
abnormal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1245

posted 10 March 2002 12:06 PM      Profile for abnormal   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sheep,

If you're really that upset with Canadian taxes, and honestly believe that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence, you can always leave. Depending on your qualifications it's actually not even difficult. And you won't be alone.


From: far, far away | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dawna Matrix
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 156

posted 10 March 2002 11:59 PM      Profile for Dawna Matrix     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm pretty sure that the amount that you pay for EI and CPP and income tax is equal to the contribution that your employer must make on your behalf. Is this true, oh tax divas in the sky?

Keep in mind that I have appeased you by already filing a week ago.


From: the stage on cloud 9 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 11 March 2002 02:25 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yeah. The payroll taxes (EI, CPP) are split equally between the employer and employee.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 11 March 2002 02:38 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
According to my "source" quoted above a bit, CPP is equal, but EI is not.
quote:
Contributions to the federal unemployment plan are 4.2% of employee wages for the employer, up to a maximum contribution of $Cdn 1,780.00, and 3% for the employee, up to a maximum contribution of $Cdn 1,271.40.

From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 11 March 2002 03:42 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Odd. Usually payroll taxes are split identically, but what the hey.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 12 March 2002 07:44 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Employer EI premiums are 1.4 times the amount that an employee pays. For every $1 you pay, your employer pays $1.4.

Employers can apply to have their premium lowered (i.e. to 1.2 x ee contribution)depending on the type of sick and short term disability plans (known as wage replacement plans) they offer to their employers. A well managed sick time plan can significantly reduce your tax expenditures in this area.

can't believe I'm taking time out of my amsterdam vacation to talk about tax laws!!!!!!!!!!!

ps-taxes are too lower in the United States!!!!!


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 12 March 2002 08:35 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
ps-taxes are too lower in the United States!!!!!

Ah, as a percentage of GDP, yes, but we are talking about payroll taxes?

So, tell me? what are the payroll taxes like in the Netherlands? Does they discuss payroll taxes in, uh, those "coffee" shops?


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 12 March 2002 08:41 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

[ March 12, 2002: Message edited by: clockwork ]


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 13 March 2002 03:50 AM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
So, tell me? what are the payroll taxes like in the Netherlands? Does they discuss payroll taxes in, uh, those "coffee" shops?


taxes are pretty high here, as is the cost of living...but most of the people in the coffee shop where I'm writing this seem to be pretty happy!!!

now where can i find a decent bag of potato chips?


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 05 February 2003 01:39 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Wanna know the current schedule of marginal tax rates? Check it.

That table leaves out the lower-end marginal tax rates. See that one for a rather poorly worded summary of all the marginal tax rates.

[ 25 February 2004: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sine Ziegler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 225

posted 05 February 2003 02:07 AM      Profile for Sine Ziegler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
*snerk* Death to the taxman!!

I know this is an old thread but hey hey now. Taxlady taxman... they live and breathe among you.

quote:
I must admit that I know nothing about filing my taxes. I usually try to do it on my own but find that if I were to work it out five times I'd get 5 drastically different results. Instead I just send something in and let them fix it. Problem with this is that Revenue Canada doesn't seem to be much better at figuring out taxes than I am. Each year I receive one or two revisions from RC which usually end with me owing them more money.

Rev Can is figuring out your taxes according to the information Rev Can has. If you file T1 wrong, the Agency will re-assess according to the information they have, namely in terms of T slips. You are right that you would probably be better at figuring out your own taxes than Rev Can, because you know your deductions and your income situation better than they do but if you don't file with the right info in the right lines the first time ( as it is a voluntary system) the computer system will nab ya.


From: Calgary | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
TommyPaineatWork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2956

posted 05 February 2003 02:17 AM      Profile for TommyPaineatWork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Paying taxes again this year?

he he. Suckers.

--Tommy "Bronfman" Paine.


From: London | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sine Ziegler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 225

posted 05 February 2003 02:22 AM      Profile for Sine Ziegler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Is Bronfman one of the guys who got a new SIN ( one of those extra 5 mil out there ) ?

Cos Rev Can dosn't give a shit what your name is, they go by SIN on T slips.


From: Calgary | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
TommyPaineatWork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2956

posted 05 February 2003 02:31 AM      Profile for TommyPaineatWork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Did I say something?

Just me, wisecracking.....

.......let's get back to this....oh, much later in the year, okay......


--Tommy "Thinks better of being a smartass in tax season" Paine.


From: London | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 05 February 2003 02:54 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The Bronfmans were the ones that shot $2 billion out of the country before RevCan could tax it, and then had the gall to act outraged when the public got outraged.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
TommyPaineatWork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2956

posted 05 February 2003 03:50 AM      Profile for TommyPaineatWork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If my memory serves, the Bronfman's asked for and got approval from the brass of Rev Can before they did so.

They were given some kind of special treatment, anyway.

Not that the persons reviewing my tax return would do that. They are consumate professionals, who at worst, are only doing what they are required to do by law. They are intelligent, kind people, and to a person, enviably attractive.


---Tommy "obsequious in the presence of Rev. Can. employees" Paine.


From: London | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Trisha
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 387

posted 06 February 2003 08:21 AM      Profile for Trisha     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Another problem with income tax this year and last year is the elimination of the disability deduction for people on CPP disability. This deduction was used to cover expenses that are not covered by any insurance plan such as non-prescription drugs and the amounts we have to pay out of pocket for assistive devices. Since the government changed the medical deduction so that you have to have paid out an impossibly large amount of money to qualify for that deduction, most people on pensions have depended on the disabled deduction to get a refund so they have something to use for these extra expenses. There are groups trying to fight this government's removal of this deduction.
From: Thunder Bay, Ontario | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 06 February 2003 12:12 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Aviator
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3299

posted 06 February 2003 12:19 PM      Profile for Aviator     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I am really curious as to why we allow people to reduce their income tax when they have children. I am wondering if this originated in a bygone era when we felt it was important to populate our country, to increase our human resource base, for want of a better term.

But, if you have 2 children don't they automatically consume more services. More medical, more schooling, etc. So shouldn't families pay more? Why should I subsidize someone else's children?

Another topic: what would have happened if Revenue Canada had said to the Bronfman's, "Sorry, you cannot take that money offshore. You owe us x dollars."?


From: British Columbia | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 06 February 2003 12:31 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Then the Bronfmans would have just shuttled the money out anyway, bribed politicians and in general raised a big middle finger to the Canadian public.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy Shanks
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3076

posted 06 February 2003 03:23 PM      Profile for Tommy Shanks     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The way you solve the Tax Issue (tah, dah, dah, dah)...

1. Eliminate all personal, corporate, and other taxes except sales taxes.
2. Apply a sales tax of, say, 40% (or whatever would be initally revenue neutral) to each and every purchase made in Canada, including the big one, stocks and business transactions.
3. Watch the cash roll in.

You buy a loaf of bread for a dollar? Pay your buck forty. You flip $1,000,000 dollars worth of Air Canada stock, thats $1,400,000 thank you. Thew government buys $50,000,000 of restorations for Old City Hall in Toronto, thats $70-mil. Buy a transit token, 30%, buy a BMW, the same 30%.

No deductions, no exemptions, no problem. Consumption taxes have never been less regressive. Simple as pie.

Seriously though, I don't complain about taxes. Its the freight for living here.

Edit: I really do have to learn how to proof read.

[ 06 February 2003: Message edited by: Tommy Shanks ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sine Ziegler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 225

posted 06 February 2003 09:35 PM      Profile for Sine Ziegler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Actually in order to use your children in a Federal tax deduction ( line 303 ) you have to be single, divorced, separated or widowed.

So we know right there that this tax credit is in place to give a break to single parents.

Your child cannot have a net income of more than $649 ( otherwise there is a calc that reduces how much you can deduct) and if their income is over approx $6000, you can't deduct them at all.

It is a non refundable tax credit so if you aren't paying taxes, you do not benefit.

There is also the Child tax Benefit... I don't know what that is all about though

You can only claim one child on line 303. In some provinces, like in Saskatchewan for example, you can claim up to $2000 per child even if you are married but then you can't claim the Federal amount. You can claim as many children as you want.


From: Calgary | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
TommyPaineatWork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2956

posted 07 February 2003 01:12 AM      Profile for TommyPaineatWork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh, you just opened yourself up for about a kajillion pleading pm's for tax help in about two weeks you know.

We've had this arguement before. Everyone has a reason why they think they should be special and exempt from this tax or that tax or all tax.

I say a graduated system, where you make "X" and pay "Y%" of "X".

Complications beyond that are comparable to the distracting patter and hand flourishes of a three card monte player.


From: London | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sine Ziegler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 225

posted 07 February 2003 01:20 AM      Profile for Sine Ziegler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
My coworkers and I have often joked that we need a T1 that looks like this.

ie:

Rabble Land 2002 Income Tax Return

Name ________________
Address ______________
Phone Number ( if you have one ) ____

How much money you made in 2002 ______


Thank you. Please allow 6-8 weeks for assessment and we will notify you in writing of the amount owing or owed.


From: Calgary | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
TommyPaineatWork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2956

posted 07 February 2003 01:36 AM      Profile for TommyPaineatWork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I get my ex's step father to figure mine out. I really don't have the patience for it. I looked at it last year and got frustrated at once. Dumb, I know. It's something that I should be able to figure out no problem.... it's just by line three Stever Earl's "Copperhead Road" starts going through my head.......

Whenever I've had friends or aquaintences on the "inside" of something, I've never had the gall to ask for this favour or that.

In fact, when a candidate I had worked for in elections previous to the one she finally won, and she chose a friend and nieghbor of mine as her C.A., my first thought was "Shit, now if I run into trouble with the government, I can't ask for help!"


From: London | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sine Ziegler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 225

posted 07 February 2003 01:42 AM      Profile for Sine Ziegler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hahaha.
Actually I like answering tax related questions and I can appreciate how frustrating filing your own return can be.

I just want people to understand the complexities of our voluntary tax system and why the government does things the way they do.

I made another thread in here to see if anyone actually has questions maybe I can help with. They cant be questions I can get in trouble with though. ( ie how much RRSP's should I buy this year to reduce my income tax to exactly 0?) Because some of those Q's are for financial advisors.


From: Calgary | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pogo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2999

posted 08 February 2003 12:40 AM      Profile for Pogo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The child tax credit replaced the baby bonus. Moving it from a payment to a tax credit allowed the tax system to act as an acceptable form of means test (it diminishes by a 5% marginal amount for one or two kids). I think it is a pretty good government expenditure.
From: Richmond BC | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 25 February 2004 10:32 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
*badump bump bump*

So anyway. The tax geek has a question for other tax geeks.

If I have a whole whack of unused tuition and education and I transfer this year's to my mom, can I still roll over the previous years indefinitely?

PS. Check this out. It's got the top marginal tax rates for various kinds of income. Isn't it just absolutely sick how capital gains is given such an easy ride?

[ 25 February 2004: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
candle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3103

posted 26 February 2004 12:29 AM      Profile for candle     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
A little late on this thread but when economists and staticians talk about the payroll tax burden - they only refer to the employer share as that is the only amount that is a cost of hiring (i.e. if payroll taxes were borne completely by employees then there would be at no cost to the employer).

In Ontario, we have the federal CPP & EI plus the provincial EHT & Workers Compensation Premiums (WSIB)

The employer and employee share of CPP is currently at around 5% each (note there is a basic $3,500 annual). This has been rising each year to cover the shortfall. The EI rate for employees is currently around 2% which makes the employer rate just short of 3% (unless as discussed above the employer has a disability plan and is approved for the lower multiple of around 1.25 which makes the employer rate around 2.5%). The EI rate has been dropping each year due to the large surplus in the fund. EI is not paid on the salaries of employees who own a significant percentage of the company and if approved family members of the owners (as they would, in most likelihood not be able to collect EI) It should be noted that once an employee reaches just below $40,000 in gross wages the responsibility for CPP & EI ends. EHT is 1.95% of gross wages paid by the employer less a basic $400,000 exemption (to be shared among all associated employers - so your mom & dad corner store would generally pay no EHT). WSIB premiums vary by industry based on actuarial principles and the employer doesn't have to pay premiums on an employee once they reach $60,000. Also WSIB premiums are optional for corporate officers (however if no WSIB is paid then the offier can not claim benefits). Finally, there can be adjustments to WSIB if the employers accident claim history is better or worse than the industry average.

SO if a company had 20 employees making $50,000/year for a total payroll of $1,000,000 their payroll tax burden would be about:

CPP ($40,000 - $3,500)*5% or about $1,800 per employee or $36,000 total
EI would be $40,000* 3% or about $1,200 per employee or $24,000 total
EHT would be ($1,000,000-$400,000)*1.95% or about $12,000 total
WSIB (say a relatively modest industry with a 2% rate) would eb $1,000,000 @ 2% or $20,000

Thus total payroll taxes on $1,000,000 of payroll in this case would be about $90,000 or 9%.

Now if the 20 employees were actually indendent contractors then the payroll tax burden on the employer would be zero. The independent contractor would have to pay CPP at 10% (both the employer and employee share) on his gross income net of any allowable expenses.


From: Ontario | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
candle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3103

posted 26 February 2004 12:33 AM      Profile for candle     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DrConway:
*
PS. Check this out. It's got the top marginal tax rates for various kinds of income. Isn't it just absolutely sick how capital gains is given such an easy ride?

[ 25 February 2004: Message edited by: DrConway ]



That was a result of Ernie Eves and Paul Martin trying to one up each other. 75% of capital gains were taxed. Eves then proposed that ONtario with its move to tax on income rather than tax on federal tax system move to taxing 2/3 of capital gains. Martin matched that and then went down to 1/2 which Eves matched. I believe all the other provinces followed suit. In 2000 if you had gains in January and early February only 75% were taxed. If gains occurred from mid February to mid October only 2/3 were taxed. IF gains occurred in late October to December only 1/2 were taxed. If a taxpayer had gains in 2 periods and losses in one or vice versa then it was much more complex or if they were carrying losses back or forward.


From: Ontario | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
candle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3103

posted 26 February 2004 12:41 AM      Profile for candle     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DrConway:
*badump bump bump*

So anyway. The tax geek has a question for other tax geeks.

If I have a whole whack of unused tuition and education and I transfer this year's to my mom, can I still roll over the previous years indefinitely?
[ 25 February 2004: Message edited by: DrConway ]


Yes.

If you have say $7,000 from 2002 and $6,000 for 2003 and don't need any to claim for yourself you can transfer the $5,000 to your mom and then carryforward the $7,000 from 2002 and the remaining $1,000 for 2003 for a total of $8,000 to 2004 (see schedule 11)

If you only had $3,000 for 2003 - you only can transfer $3,000 to your mom - you can not transfer amounts from prior years.

Note if your taxable income exceeds your basic credits then you are obligated to use the 2002 carryforward to the extent of the excess.


From: Ontario | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 26 February 2004 02:07 AM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I could complain about taxes. I figure I've got about 15 years before I'll have a leg to stand on though, after all that education, health, the time the cops saved my ass, the time I called for the Coast Guard and they were there (though I didn't end up needing them), the two times I was unemployed and had to collect EI, the post-secondary education, the streetlights, the crosswalks, the air traffic controllers that keep me alive when I fly over to visit my folks, the security doofuses at the airport that look at other people's stuff all day to find bombs, the thousands of kilometers of highways I use and have used, the 3 times I've gone into emergency, the time I had to take a friend into emergency, the time I took my wife in there.

Pant pant.

I think we get a pretty decent bang for buck ratio, to be honest. Corruption is always disgusting and we should be vigilant about it, but overall we get a lot of benefits from our taxes.

It does hurt when it comes off each check, but it would hurt more to be paying a toll at every highway, taking your credit card to the hospital with you, and having to save up for your child's elementary school education, not to mention university.

I get a little tired of the whinging about taxes, to be honest. If we were to start cutting taxes, which would be fine (assuming we could afford it), I'd say START with the GST and PSTs, move on to raising the basic personal exemption (as much as possible, as often as possible). Balance that off with bumping corporate taxes up a bit.

And for the idea of giving a tax credit for mortgage interest, how would that NOT be a regressive tax? Who doesn't get that credit? Renters would then be left carrying more of the weight, hardly fair.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 26 February 2004 02:30 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by candle:
If you only had $3,000 for 2003 - you only can transfer $3,000 to your mom - you can not transfer amounts from prior years.

Note if your taxable income exceeds your basic credits then you are obligated to use the 2002 carryforward to the extent of the excess.


The deal is, I only got paid a piddly $2000 total for 2003, which doesn't even touch the basic exemption. So if I can transfer my tuition and education for 2003 only, and roll over everything accumulated from 2001-2002, that benefits me later and benefits my mom now. (I knew you couldn't transfer amounts from prior years, but what concerned me was that I would lose my rollovers if I transferred 2003's amounts)

[ 26 February 2004: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 02 March 2004 11:58 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
OK, tax question again.

Question is, this time, if my tuition & education plus my brother's tuition & education both go to my mom, can we simply transfer our totals right up to the last dollar and potentially allow my mom to get a refund instead of owing tax?

This is kind of urgent because I'm E-filing mine next week with my wonderful friendly tax preparer and if I don't tell them I'm transferring at that point it'll screw up my mom's taxes when she does hers later on.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 04 March 2004 03:50 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
*ahem*.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 04 March 2004 03:56 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
[QUIBBLE]

quote:
the two times I was unemployed and had to collect EI, the post-secondary education, the streetlights, the crosswalks, the air traffic controllers that keep me alive when I fly over to visit my folks, the security doofuses at the airport that look at other people's stuff all day to find bombs, the thousands of kilometers of highways I use and have used, the 3 times I've gone into emergency, the time I had to take a friend into emergency, the time I took my wife in there.

EI - Insurance Premium, not tax
Air Traffic Controllers - NAVCAN surcharge on airline tickets
Security Doofues - Most airports pay these guys privately, with little or no fed funding.
Highways - Gas Taxes & Surtaxes
[/QUIBBLE]


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 04 March 2004 04:23 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:
[QUIBBLE]Doofues
[/QUIBBLE]

[quibble] Doofi? [/quibble]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 04 March 2004 04:27 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
[QUIBBLE]

Doofents?
Doofenti?
Doofenters?

[/QUIBBLE]


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 04 March 2004 08:33 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:
[QUIBBLE]

EI - Insurance Premium, not tax
Air Traffic Controllers - NAVCAN surcharge on airline tickets
Security Doofues - Most airports pay these guys privately, with little or no fed funding.
Highways - Gas Taxes & Surtaxes
[/QUIBBLE]


Ok, I know I'll NEVER be able to complain about EI.

Air Traffic: How long would it take me to find someone who describes the extra charges on a ticket as a 'tax'?

Highways: Are you sure about that?

The (ahem) doofi may be paid for by the airport, but who regulates them? What about the RCMP at the airport? Customs?

Quibbles, yes, but the point was most of us don't have much to complain about re: taxes and fees.

I'd also like to point out that those who have higher tax rates also are likely to get a higher benefit, though indirectly. Pay higher taxes, which go to education/welfare/everything else, and get the pleasure of living in a society that has a much reduced risk of violent crime etc. unlike many other places that have much lower tax rates (such as Somalia, or Guatemala).


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sine Ziegler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 225

posted 04 March 2004 09:00 PM      Profile for Sine Ziegler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Question is, this time, if my tuition & education plus my brother's tuition & education both go to my mom, can we simply transfer our totals right up to the last dollar and potentially allow my mom to get a refund instead of owing tax?

Yes you can pick and chose what you transfer to your mom so long as neither you nor your brother need the credit for yourself. You can sede at the bottom of schedule 11 that you figure out how much you mom can get from you and then you can chose how much she puts on line 324 from you.

Your mom cannot have more than $10,000 on her line 324 if there are two students. If your brother is married he has to transfer to his spouse first before mom.

You know how your non refundable tax credits are in the 300's and your tax return and how the basic exemption starts in the low 300's? There is a priority for credits based on how low in the 300's the credit is.

For example, medical expenses are on line 330. If you have a whackload of eligible med expenses to claim and you want to carry foward your tuition and claim med expenses first, CCRA won't let you because tuition is on line 323 and it comes before 330.

Cool eh?


From: Calgary | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sports Guy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3923

posted 04 March 2004 11:24 PM      Profile for Sports Guy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Heywood, if gas taxes went directly to roads then we in Saskatchewan with a $0.15 gas tax would have much nicer roads than Alberta with a $0.09 gas tax.
From: where the streets have no name | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 07 March 2004 05:52 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:
EI - Insurance Premium, not tax
Air Traffic Controllers - NAVCAN surcharge on airline tickets
Security Doofues - Most airports pay these guys privately, with little or no fed funding.
Highways - Gas Taxes & Surtaxes

The basic point is, it's largely government money and government initiative that makes these programs go.

NAVCAN is a nonprofit run by the government, as far as I know, and the airports, to my knowledge, are associated with NAVCAN.

As for highways, just because gas taxes pay for them and just cuz surtaxes pay for them does not obviate the fact that a government body initiated and executed their planning and construction.

Every time I step on a concrete sidewalk I benefit from government action.

Every time I step on a bus, I benefit from government action.

Hell, I have benefitted more than most from the government. In my early years, it was government-paid speech therapists that taught me how to talk properly so you all fine people can understand me if, by some cosmic circumstance, we actually bump into each other. It was also the government that provided me the necessary extra equipment to let me hear my teachers in high school.

Finally, the government also ran a program that paid for my technical school education, of which the result is my chemical engineering diploma out of BCIT.

Since then, of course, the government has killed most of those programs dead, or left them on life support. Future hearing impaired individuals will be less well-equipped than I to deal with the hearing world.

Oh well, I guess your TAX CUT is more important than the fact that a bunch of deaf kids got kicked in the ass, right sheep and Heywood?

[ 07 March 2004: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
John K
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3407

posted 07 March 2004 11:18 PM      Profile for John K        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
At the end of the day, I'll pay somewhere from 20 to 25% of my total income in federal and provincial income taxes, and another 10% or so in GST and municipal taxes.

What do I get in exchange? Health care, education for my children, roads, water and sanitation, ambulance and fire, police services, the courts, correctional services, environmental protection, etc. Also social solidarity that includes social assistance, income for those with disabilities, old age security, social housing, etc. Is this a reasonable return for the one-third of my income that goes to support these public services? You bet.


From: Edmonton | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 07 March 2004 11:30 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DrConway:

PS. Check this out. It's got the top marginal tax rates for various kinds of income. Isn't it just absolutely sick how capital gains is given such an easy ride?

See, this is why I figure if you form a co-operative what you need to do is have everyone own a share in the "company". Then you pay everyone minimum wage, and then have the rest of their pay distributed as regular dividends. Capital gains, taxable at much less.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 07 March 2004 11:37 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
[Quibble]
Doofoi?
[/Quibble]

From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 08 March 2004 01:13 AM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rufus Polson:

See, this is why I figure if you form a co-operative what you need to do is have everyone own a share in the "company". Then you pay everyone minimum wage, and then have the rest of their pay distributed as regular dividends. Capital gains, taxable at much less.


That's cute. There must be some reason why you can't do that, though.


From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 08 March 2004 01:16 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
People recommend this for sole-proprietorships all the time. Incorporate, pay yourself minwage for the entire year, then transfer the profits to yourself as a dividend or as cap gains. Boom, hello low tax rate.

[ 08 March 2004: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 08 March 2004 01:53 AM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Heywood, if gas taxes went directly to roads then we in Saskatchewan with a $0.15 gas tax would have much nicer roads than Alberta with a $0.09 gas tax.

You do have nicer roads..... if you own an autobody shop.

Lets be clear though. I don't have any problem with taxes. Should the base personal exception be a lot higher? Absolutely.


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sports Guy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3923

posted 08 March 2004 10:42 AM      Profile for Sports Guy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
On the dividend issue, dividends are declared out of after tax income while salaries are pre-tax an thus reduce taxable income. So the government gets as much or more income from the businessperson who pays themselves in dividends as from the person who pays themselves a salary.

For the capital gain rate to apply, an asset has to be sold at a profit, dividends are not classified as a capital gain.


From: where the streets have no name | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Nam
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3472

posted 08 March 2004 01:30 PM      Profile for Nam     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:
[QUIBBLE]

EI - Insurance Premium, not tax

[/QUIBBLE]


My little quibble is the fact that the Feds have taken in over $45 billion in "insurance premiums" and put it into their general revenue accounts, instead of using it for out of work workers. Nowadays, only about 1/3 of workers who are unemployed receive EI benefits, even though a surplus of $45 billion exists. Imagine if we were paying into home fire insurance, a surplus of $45 billion is built up, but only one third of us whose homes burn down get paid out - the rest of the money goes into other things. We should be outraged.


From: Calgary-Land of corporate towers | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 08 March 2004 02:06 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
GD RIGHT we should.
From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca