[stratos]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

stratos stratos:

I do find it odd that the people supporting the Gov. getting more tax revenue are also the people that want the "rich" to pay it. Yet when anyone suggests that they cut taxes these same people are the first to cry that it will hurt people.

How is it that having more money in your pocket hurts you? How is it that you are so adamant that others should pay more tax yet you are unwilling to pay it yourself. You claim it is unfair that the rich don't fork over 50% of their money yet you are unwilling to do the same.

Nice Straw men.

1) Nobody is advocating that the government get 'more' tax reveneue than current. It's about those who want the government to get 'less' than current.

2) Where have you every heard any "pro-tax" people say they wouldn't also pay more themselves? I'm certain most of us have said we would indeed suport higher taxes for ourselves.

Not a straw man because I've seen it advocated on this site for years.

1) Every time andyt talks about a program that should be done the only funding for it is by raising taxes.

2) as for pro taxers just look at who they want to be even more taxed it is never themselves but the "rich people" You know those people the top 1% who pay over 10% of collected taxes.


Yet you say you don't want taxes raised you just do not want them cut. Yet the Gov. always seems to need more and more for all those social programs that are kit and parcel for politicians that are elected for social change. They say the only way to get the change done is to raise taxes.

[BeaverFever]

$1:

2) as for pro taxers just look at who they want to be even more taxed it is never themselves but the "rich people" You know those people the top 1% who pay over 10% of collected taxes.

I've highlighted the false claim in red. Interesting how 3 words inserted can change so much.

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

On those occasions when my income has been reduced I've reduced my expenses commensurate with the reduction in income and things turned out just fine.

The government can do the same in relation to reduced revenues.

Sure. Let's eliminate the military. That will save some money. Let's not build icebreakers. Let's not rebuild and expand infrastructure. Lets not invest in education.

If your income if way down, and your house needs repairs, maybe you have to just put a pot under that leak in the roof. If you voluntarily give up income and neglect your house as a result, then you're just an idiot.

Your country is right now faced with exactly this dilemma as revenues from the oil fields decline and your effective revenues from your various sales tax schemes decline due to the falling CDN$.

So what's your solution, genius?

Do you want to raise taxes on people whose incomes are declining or who have lost their jobs altogether?

How's that going to help if you create a situation where people just take their money and leave like what happened in France? It's really kind of crazy to hike taxes on the exact segment of society that enjoys the most international mobility. Not that you'd think of that.

You bring to mind what happened in California a few years back when a punitive tax was laid down on the wealthy. With just twelve people leaving the state the state lost over $400 million in revenue that they had collected under the previous tax scheme.

Another thing: I am not guaranteed an income but with your thinking it's clear that you think government should be guaranteed a steady flow of revenues regardless of the ebbs and flows of the economy and regardless of the clusterfucks that often arise from the kind of ill-considered and punitive government policies that you advocate.

Why is that?

[BeaverFever]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

You're certain that the tax cuts had zero effect on the economy? Really?

I know you want to make your point, but let's not go overboard here.

You'd like us to believe that a any tax cut is a permanent and fixed reduction in revenue when history has shown quite the opposite. There are so many variables.

There are so many variables. This is precisely why history has not shown that tax cuts increase tax revenue.

Besides were' getting off track ... we're talking about personal tax, not corporate tax and a person is a very different creature from a corporation looking to expand a factory or build a new skyscaper.

[BeaverFever]

$1:

How's that going to help if you create a situation where people just take their money and leave like what happened in France? It's really kind of crazy to hike taxes on the exact segment of society that enjoys the most international mobility. Not that you'd think of that.

$1:

The Myth of the Rich Who Flee From Taxes

....
It turns out that a large majority of people move for far more compelling reasons, like jobs, the cost of housing, family ties or a warmer climate. At least three recent academic studies have demonstrated that the number of people who move for tax reasons is negligible, even among the wealthy.

Cristobal Young, an assistant professor of sociology at Stanford, studied the effects of recent tax increases in New Jersey and California.

“It’s very clear that, over all, modest changes in top tax rates do not affect millionaire migration,” he told me this week. “Neither tax increases nor tax cuts on the rich have affected their migration rates.”

The notion of tax flight “is almost entirely bogus — it’s a myth,” said Jon Shure, director of state fiscal studies at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a nonprofit research group in Washington. “The anecdotal coverage makes it seem like people are leaving in droves because of high taxes. They’re not. There are a lot of low-tax states, and you don’t see millionaires flocking there.”

Despite the allure of low taxes, Mr. Depardieu hasn’t been seen in Russia since picking up his passport and seems to be hedging his bets by maintaining a residence in Belgium. Meanwhile, Russian billionaires are snapping up trophy properties in high-tax London, New York and Beverly Hills, Calif.

...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/16/busin ... .html?_r=0

[BartSimpson]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a nonprofit research group in Washington.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_on_ ... Priorities

$1:

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) is an American think tank that analyzes the impacts of budget policies from a progressive viewpoint

Fucking progholes rubber stamping proghole policies.

[BeaverFever]

1) Ad hominem
2) Only one of several sources quoted

[fifeboy]

I don't mind paying taxes. What boils my blood is what the money is spent on after collected. If more taxes are needed to improve our military, so be it. If that means more cash for ice breakers---good, if it means getting involved in some cess-pit in the middle east---no! OH--and I tend to think the only good thing Cryin' Brian ever did was the GST. More goods and services tax and less income tax.

[BartSimpson]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

1) Ad hominem
2) Only one of several sources quoted

Meanwhile, in the real world where progholes dare not tread...

http://www.sfgate.com/business/networth ... 135090.php

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=tax+flee+france

[stratos]

Funny you post this

$1:

Quote:
2) as for pro taxers just look at who they want to be even more taxed it is never themselves but the "rich people" You know those people the top 1% who pay over 10% of collected taxes.



I've highlighted the false claim in red. Interesting how 3 words inserted can change so much.

Denying a want to tax the rich yet here on the same page you post an article talking about exactly what I said. Taxing the rich

$1:

Quote:
How's that going to help if you create a situation where people just take their money and leave like what happened in France? It's really kind of crazy to hike taxes on the exact segment of society that enjoys the most international mobility. Not that you'd think of that.




Quote:
The Myth of the Rich Who Flee From Taxes

....
It turns out that a large majority of people move for far more compelling reasons, like jobs, the cost of housing, family ties or a warmer climate. At least three recent academic studies have demonstrated that the number of people who move for tax reasons is negligible, even among the wealthy.

Cristobal Young, an assistant professor of sociology at Stanford, studied the effects of recent tax increases in New Jersey and California.

“It’s very clear that, over all, modest changes in top tax rates do not affect millionaire migration,” he told me this week. “Neither tax increases nor tax cuts on the rich have affected their migration rates.”

The notion of tax flight “is almost entirely bogus — it’s a myth,” said Jon Shure, director of state fiscal studies at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a nonprofit research group in Washington. “The anecdotal coverage makes it seem like people are leaving in droves because of high taxes. They’re not. There are a lot of low-tax states, and you don’t see millionaires flocking there.”

Despite the allure of low taxes, Mr. Depardieu hasn’t been seen in Russia since picking up his passport and seems to be hedging his bets by maintaining a residence in Belgium. Meanwhile, Russian billionaires are snapping up trophy properties in high-tax London, New York and Beverly Hills, Calif.

...


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/16/busin ... .html?_r=0

Now we can go back and forth on this but in all sense and purpose you've just supported my statement.

As for the quoted article you posted I've found many in support of it and in refuting of it. If we have multiple studies showing polar opposite conclusions what should we conclude? That neither side is telling the truth or just one side is? Because there is no way both sides are correct.

[martin14]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

http://www.sfgate.com/business/networth ... 135090.php

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=tax+flee+france

Oh, stop bringing reality to his wet dream taxing.

And be more careful, if andy reads that he will start to cry.

[BeaverFever]

stratos stratos:

Funny you post this

$1:

Quote:
2) as for pro taxers just look at who they want to be even more taxed it is never themselves but the "rich people" You know those people the top 1% who pay over 10% of collected taxes.



I've highlighted the false claim in red. Interesting how 3 words inserted can change so much.

Denying a want to tax the rich yet here on the same page you post an article talking about exactly what I said. Taxing the rich

$1:

Quote:
How's that going to help if you create a situation where people just take their money and leave like what happened in France? It's really kind of crazy to hike taxes on the exact segment of society that enjoys the most international mobility. Not that you'd think of that.




Quote:
The Myth of the Rich Who Flee From Taxes

....
It turns out that a large majority of people move for far more compelling reasons, like jobs, the cost of housing, family ties or a warmer climate. At least three recent academic studies have demonstrated that the number of people who move for tax reasons is negligible, even among the wealthy.

Cristobal Young, an assistant professor of sociology at Stanford, studied the effects of recent tax increases in New Jersey and California.

“It’s very clear that, over all, modest changes in top tax rates do not affect millionaire migration,” he told me this week. “Neither tax increases nor tax cuts on the rich have affected their migration rates.”

The notion of tax flight “is almost entirely bogus — it’s a myth,” said Jon Shure, director of state fiscal studies at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a nonprofit research group in Washington. “The anecdotal coverage makes it seem like people are leaving in droves because of high taxes. They’re not. There are a lot of low-tax states, and you don’t see millionaires flocking there.”

Despite the allure of low taxes, Mr. Depardieu hasn’t been seen in Russia since picking up his passport and seems to be hedging his bets by maintaining a residence in Belgium. Meanwhile, Russian billionaires are snapping up trophy properties in high-tax London, New York and Beverly Hills, Calif.

...


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/16/busin ... .html?_r=0

Now we can go back and forth on this but in all sense and purpose you've just supported my statement.

As for the quoted article you posted I've found many in support of it and in refuting of it. If we have multiple studies showing polar opposite conclusions what should we conclude? That neither side is telling the truth or just one side is? Because there is no way both sides are correct.

You must be colour blind. Can't you see what I highlighted?

Let me spell it out for you even simpler: Your lie is that we 'pro-taxers' don't want higher taxes for ourselves, only the rich. We are saying Increase taxes on the rich and on us.


Stop being dishonest with your arguments.

[BeaverFever]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

1) Ad hominem
2) Only one of several sources quoted

Meanwhile, in the real world where progholes dare not tread...

http://www.sfgate.com/business/networth ... 135090.php

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=tax+flee+france

The key line in your article:

$1:

It's too soon to say whether these anecdotes represent a larger trend.. [/b]

"Everyone has a story about someone who moved away and attributed it to taxes," says Cristobal Young, co-author of the state's millionaire migration study. "The reality is, every year some people move out and some people move in. How people rationalize their decision to migrate depends on the climate and whether they are upset at the moment."

You'll recognize Cristobal Young from my article.....that is, assuming you read either one.

[andyt]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

You must be colour blind. Can't you see what I highlighted?

Let me spell it out for you even simpler: Your lie is that we 'pro-taxers' don't want higher taxes for ourselves, only the rich. We are saying Increase taxes on the rich and on us.


Stop being dishonest with your arguments.

Well to be fair, higher taxes would hit the rich harder. It's like the guy who was asked why he robbed banks, said "that's where the money is." Since the rich game the system to that they get by far the largest share of the profits, seems only right they pay the most in taxes. They still have way more left over than ordinary working people do. And I wouldn't raise the tax rate on the working poor, or actually I would increase the personal deduction significantly, so low income earners pay no tax at all.

In the case of income splitting, it helps well off people. Doesn't do much for the rich, since it's capped at $2000, chump change for them.

But for actually paying for the things we need in Canada, we would have to do more than just increase taxes for the top earners - we would all have to chip in, except the lowest group. No sense taking any of their money to make their life even harder, it just costs more in health and crime to be worth it.

[BeaverFever]

Right but none of what you're saying suggests you're only for tax increases as long as theyre only for someone else.