[andyt]

With you making insuations without spelling anything out.

You don't like exceptions (yet talk about minimum income strategies). There's no reason a progressive system could eliminate tax exemptions anymore than a flat tax. The two aren't one and the same. But many exemptions are actually a good idea. It's government, like the Harperites liked to do, adding too many boutique cuts because they're trying to reward their base or shape behavior. They can do that under either a flat or progressive tax system.

[BeaverFever]

shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:

This is why I will repeat over and over, "God Bless America".

You think the IRS or FBI would back away from someone based on wealth or power? On the contrary, they realize that those abusers are the worst kind just ask Wesley Snipes how wealth, power and fame helped him when he tried to cheat the government and in effect, other taxpayers. It's also why you see NY Police officers charged with crimes by the FBI, they don't shy away from the difficult tasks, they will even go after future presidents. The law of the land isn't circumvented by anyone.

Its called liberty and democracy, not cronyism and hypocrisy (a la the OPP and Wynne for example).

You have got to be on crack. Seriously, on crack.

[shockedcanadian]

peck420 peck420:

I must be extremely special.

When the CRA caught me on some...erm...errant taxes...I was offered the same deal.

I guess my money is worth far more than my bank says. Sure as shit wasn't in the millions.

They still forgave the penalties in lieu of immediate back tax + interest payments. Which I did...yay! As for being 'dragged through the courts'...CRA only proceeds with the legal end if you don't pay per your agreement with them.

And, yes, the confidentiality stamp was all over everything...because, outside of me and the CRA...it is confidential.

I love how an everyday occurrence becomes 'more special' the second a large dollar value is assigned to it.

Youre not special. You don't employ million dollar accounting firms either. That's a major difference, this is deliberate and systemic tax evasion. This is great profiting off of an environment that allowed one to succeed, but which they believe they should skirt the rules to avoid their fair share. I don't begrudge the wealthy, nor decisions to minimize taxes. Evasion of taxes? That's theft against a nation.

I recall being audited three years straight, first two years I was clean, the third year I underpaid in my RSP and actually owed Canada. I was content with having to pay if I was wrong. To my surprise I found out through my own work that the part-time program I was in, as a Masters level was tax deductible. That ensured that instead of me having to pay $400, I updated CRA, thanking them for auditing me. I made them aware that in fact the owed me after I deduct the MBA costs.

In fairness to CRA, I sent the papers back in and within two weeks I received a cheque in the mail. As I recall they even sent a thank you letter. It was all quite civilized and an honourable a process. If you are doing well you pay your share one way or another. Yes, the less you pay the better, but you must share that the environment gave you the chance to earn a great living. Help others less fortunate so they can chase the dream too.

You do what you can to get by. People are struggling right now, CRA knows this and they also need to ensure that those stealing millions is the focus, rather than the guy who accidentally stiffed them $50. I stand behind a system that ensures that yes, punishment is commiserative with the amount. This is why we have the terms such as "theft over". The system relies on fairness, in my opinion our federal tax system isn't a problem. Enforcement is key though.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

With you making insuations without spelling anything out.

You don't like exceptions (yet talk about minimum income strategies). There's no reason a progressive system could eliminate tax exemptions anymore than a flat tax. The two aren't one and the same. But many exemptions are actually a good idea. It's government, like the Harperites liked to do, adding too many boutique cuts because they're trying to reward their base or shape behavior. They can do that under either a flat or progressive tax system.

Exactly. I haven't spelt anything out, and you keep attributing things to me that I'm not saying.

[andyt]

Well, you've spelled out that there should be no exceptions to the flat tax you want, and that you think it's fair that someone making 1,000,000 pay the same rate as someone making 10,000.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

Well, you've spelled out that there should be no exceptions to the flat tax you want, and that you think it's fair that someone making 1,000,000 pay the same rate as someone making 10,000.

And having everyone subject to the same flat rate tax is the only 'fair' system. It's kind of the definition; that one rule applies to all. Not one rule per person, that doesn't seem 'fair'.

But I didn't say jack about exceptions, minimum incomes, tax breaks etc. that you were going on about.

[andyt]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

But I didn't say jack about exceptions,

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

The only time when societies will be equal and equitable is when everyone pays a flat tax rate on income, no exceptions.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

But I didn't say jack about exceptions,

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

The only time when societies will be equal and equitable is when everyone pays a flat tax rate on income, no exceptions.

andyt andyt:

So a flat tax with a mincome? So you already have one deduction (the mincome). What about medical expenses? Children? Probably find all sorts of deductions you actually agree with - so much for no exceptions.

You say a flat tax is more fair, yet Buffet would pay nothing since capital gains would not be taxed, only wages.

"Exceptions"

Do you even read what you write?

[andyt]

Eh? you wrote no exceptions, ie no deductions.

You also wrote

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

And yes Andy, we've discussed minimum income strategies for the low income earners before. . .

where I didn't mention minimum income strategies at all. So you seem to have some min income strategy in mind to go with your flat tax.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

Eh? you wrote no exceptions, ie no deductions.

I used the word 'exceptions', as in a flat tax that applies to everyone. I did not enumerate the exceptions/deductions etc. that you were prattling on about.

andyt andyt:

You also wrote

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

And yes Andy, we've discussed minimum income strategies for the low income earners before. . .

where I didn't mention minimum income strategies at all. So you seem to have some min income strategy in mind to go with your flat tax.

Yes, you did!

andyt andyt:

Someone at the bottom of the earnings ladder would be really farked with a flat tax with no exceptions, since they pay very little or no tax at the moment.

Again, take some time to remember your posts before posting them. It will save a lot of Xort like conversations going over the things we've already gone over because someone decided to use a word in an unexpected manner.

[andyt]

Well, duh, nobody is proposing a flat tax for only some people. But those proposing it say there would be no deductions, so you're certainly swimming against the tide there. And since deductions favor the wealthy, your system would be even less fair.

I didn't talk about minimum income, only how your tax would harm those on the bottom if it really is a flat tax scheme. But now it sounds like you do want to see exceptions, ie not everyone paying this tax.

Make up your mind. You're just throwing shit out without having thought about it.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

Well, duh, nobody is proposing a flat tax for only some people. But those proposing it say there would be no deductions, so you're certainly swimming against the tide there. And since deductions favor the wealthy, your system would be even less fair.

I didn't talk about minimum income, only how your tax would harm those on the bottom if it really is a flat tax scheme. But now it sounds like you do want to see exceptions, ie not everyone paying this tax.

Make up your mind. You're just throwing shit out without having thought about it.

Again, more things you assume I said, when I haven't said them. Stop attributing to me things I haven't said!

Perhaps if we get to that point I might say what I actually think.

[BartSimpson]

Just me, but I support a flat rate tax with no deductions and I also support ending the whole notion of tax exempt organizations.

Everyone pays the same. You, me, corporations, bakeries, political action committees, the Boy Scouts, and churches. Everyone.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Just me, but I support a flat rate tax with no deductions and I also support ending the whole notion of tax exempt organizations.

Everyone pays the same. You, me, corporations, bakeries, political action committees, the Boy Scouts, and churches. Everyone.

I'm mostly in agreement with you. Flat rate, everyone pays. Working in the Tax department of my Province, I see that a large portion of the revenue generated by a tax is eaten up by administration of that tax. There is a whole department here dedicated to refunding the tax that First Nations people pay on tobacco, because they aren't supposed to pay taxes. So, they buy smokes in the store, submit receipts and get sent a really small cheque. That exception needs a large amount of salaried people to administer a negative cash flow. Fewer exceptions means lower expenses to administer it.

But I also see the need for low income earners to not pay more than they have to. Taxes for them are basically a no interest loan to the government. And I don't think little Billy's paper route is going to generate enough income to the government to justify him filing a tax statement annually.

I could see minimum income supplements for low income earners, and a minimum age for claiming income. Minimal exclusions to the rule.

[DrCaleb]

A detailed story on this.

http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/640232003813

Quite amazing - people get scammed by a 'Tax Arbitrator' and have to pay $10k in back taxes, plus $50k for lying to the CRA . . . while people who deliberately move money to the Isle of Man and got income from 'gifts' from companies they owned so they didn't have to pay tax on it walk away with only paying back taxes and interest.

Equality for all!