On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 02:54:38 GMT, .BitHead. <bithead@no-spam>
wrote:
>>It is typical of you to read every disagreement with your overly
>>selfish values as some sort of weakness.
>
>Put more correctly, it's typical of me to point out your weaknesses to
>you, and typical of you to try and blame them on someone else.
You have the most amazing gall.
You some here in a cowardly fashion, unwilling to identify yourself,
and then you have the "chutzpah" to accuse *someone else* of weakness?
What a self-referencing ass you are!
"John Carrick" <jcarr@no-spam> wrote in message
news:ho5efvght5c6i7le4b22qaicra955tl66l@no-spam
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 02:54:38 GMT, .BitHead. <bithead@no-spam>
> wrote:
>
>
> >>It is typical of you to read every disagreement with your overly
> >>selfish values as some sort of weakness.
> >
> >Put more correctly, it's typical of me to point out your weaknesses to
> >you, and typical of you to try and blame them on someone else.
>
> You have the most amazing gall.
>
> You some here in a cowardly fashion, unwilling to identify yourself,
> and then you have the "chutzpah" to accuse *someone else* of weakness?
>
> What a self-referencing ass you are!
I don't follow your logic. How do you know for sure that my name is Jennifer
Wainwright? How can I be sure that your name is John Carrick?
Perhaps people that use obvious nicknames are being *more* honest than
people that use realistic-sounding names -- at least you know for sure that
they are using an alias.
I can think of lots of legitimate reasons why someone may want to post under
a pseudonym.
In any case, isn't it a matter of what they say, rather than who they are?
Cheers,
Jennifer
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 01:56:23 GMT, "Jennifer Wainwright"
<JenniferWainwright@no-spam> wrote:
>> >> >John Carrick wrote:
>> >> [Remaining content read and then deleted.]
>>
>> >[ditto]
>>
>> A good decision. My more discursive posts are likely beyond your
>> comprehension.
>>
>> [Don't be offended. I must be allowed my attempts at humour.]
>
>Perhaps, with the great wisdom that your "more discursive posts" exhibit,
>you could explain (to someone with such limited comprehension as myself),
>where the "humour" in "My more discursive posts are likely beyond your
>comprehension" is to be found?
You don't appear to understand that I was laughing at myself, not at
you.
That is not surprising, since self-deprecation is rare. Almost
everyone prefers always to laugh at others, rather than at him or
herself.
When I jokingly suggested that you might not understand my arguments,
I was being deliberately pedantic. Of course there was no reason to
believe that you could not understand me! The fun was in my
pretending to assume that you must be dull-witted.
If that is overly complex, I must plead that I can be overly complex..
>> >I still haven't seen you answer the original question of this thread:
>vis:
>> >How much taxes is fair?
>>
>> That is like asking how much is a the proper amount to pay a school
>> teacher, a bank clerk, a surgeon, or a professional athlete.
>>
>> The best answer is: whatever each of them is being paid at any given
>> time.
>
>I see. So no-one is ever overpaid, and no-one is ever underpaid. And no-one
>is ever overtaxed, and no-one is ever undertaxed. Whatever conditions exist,
>in a democracy, are always exactly right.
That is essentially correct. If a baseball player can get a long-term
contract for a quarter of a *b*illion dollars, as Alex Rodriguez has,
who has the right to say that he doesn't deserve it? If daycare
workers can't get much above minimum wage, who is to say that they are
worth much more? Ours is a *demand* economy. In the long run we all
get what we're worth in the general scheme of things.
As for levels of taxation, our representative democratic processes
work so as to provide the people with periodic opportunities to
pass judgment on their legislators.
When a governing party is seen to be spendthrift, and over-taxing the
people, and when large numbers of voters lose confidence in its fiscal
prudence, it is thrown out of office.
Conversely, when a government throws large sums of money at the
already affluent in the form of huge tax reductions, and in doing so
loses the ability to finance adequately, widely popular programs -
education, health-care, environmental protection - its days in office
will be numbered too.
The knowledge that electors will not accept either too much or too
little taxation keeps governments "honest". A highly socialist
government will not unduly "soak the rich", and a highly conservative
government will not slash taxes to the point that its programs cannot
be funded, since both hope to retain office. Governing parties have
to "please most of the people most of the time" They need not
"please all of the people all of the time".
The term "snake in a tube" has been applied to this situation.
As left and right-leaning partries succeed one another in government,
there will be *some* variation in tax levels -the writhing of the
snake - but there will always be upper and lower limits on taxation -
the confines of the tube.
>> Our legislators do not appoint themselves. They are elected. If they
>> hope to be re-elected, they understand that they must please at least
>> a plurality of their constituents.
>>
>> The only proof one needs that the current level of taxation is
>> acceptable comes in acknowledging that it has been arrived at by
>> the Canadian democratic political process.
>
>There are many examples where laws are enacted, or exist, that are NOT
>supported by the majority of Canadians.
I am not certain on what you are basing that statement.
Are you perhaps considering the results of certain public opinion
polls?
You might care to give me an example of a law that a considerable
majority of Canadians oppose in your opinion.
In my experience, changes have been made to any law which has not had
the support of a majority of the people. The "Young Offenders Act",
which is currently being replaced, is an example of this.
Perhaps you consider gun registration to be widely unpopular. If so,
you are ignoring that fact that Canada is a highly urbanised country,
and that the great majority of people in our large cities are happy
with gun control measures. A highly vocal minority can sometimes
leave one with a false impression.
>> Whenever there has been a widespread enough feeling that taxes have
>> become burdensome, they have been eased.
>>
>> And when there is a widespread feeling that taxation is inadequate for
>> the provision of a level of services that most people desire - as in
>> Ontario today - we throw the under-taxing government out on its ass.
>I take it you feel that taxes in Ontario should be raised? By how much?
The level of taxation in every Canadian province should be high enough
to provide the people with the level of essential government services
that *most of them* desire.
If most people think that the education system is under-funded, taxes
should be raised to provide additional funding.
Living in society is a co-operative undertaking. It requires each of
us to be concerned not only with our personal requirements, but also
with the requirements of others in our communities.
That's essentially what Hillel pointed out 2000 years ago.
[1] " If I am not for myself, who will be?"
[2] " If I am only for myself, who am I?"
If one considers only his first question, one sees no reason to pay
taxes at all.
If one considers both questions, one views taxation as necessary
to one's functioning as a responsible social being, and one is willing
to accept the level of taxation that is arrived at through the
democratic process.
Those who consider themselves over-taxed can always vote for
tax-cutting political parties. Those who consider that important
programs are being inadequately funded can always vote for their
opponents.
In the fullness of time a level of taxation acceptable to the majority
will be maintained, while there will always be the possibility for
adjustments that outside conditions dictate.
"John Carrick" <jcarr@no-spam> wrote in message
news:d16efvota416nj2qio60htl0qek299nbvu@no-spam
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 01:56:23 GMT, "Jennifer Wainwright"
> <JenniferWainwright@no-spam> wrote:
>
>
> >> >> >John Carrick wrote:
> >> >> [Remaining content read and then deleted.]
> >>
> >> >[ditto]
> >>
> >> A good decision. My more discursive posts are likely beyond your
> >> comprehension.
> >>
> >> [Don't be offended. I must be allowed my attempts at humour.]
> >
> >Perhaps, with the great wisdom that your "more discursive posts" exhibit,
> >you could explain (to someone with such limited comprehension as myself),
> >where the "humour" in "My more discursive posts are likely beyond your
> >comprehension" is to be found?
>
> You don't appear to understand that I was laughing at myself, not at
> you.
>
> That is not surprising, since self-deprecation is rare. Almost
> everyone prefers always to laugh at others, rather than at him or
> herself.
>
> When I jokingly suggested that you might not understand my arguments,
> I was being deliberately pedantic. Of course there was no reason to
> believe that you could not understand me! The fun was in my
> pretending to assume that you must be dull-witted.
>
> If that is overly complex, I must plead that I can be overly complex..
Well, silly me. I thought that you could tell when somebody is being
humourous by the fact that what they said was actually funny. But I guess
things are more "complex" than that.
>
> >> >I still haven't seen you answer the original question of this thread:
> >vis:
> >> >How much taxes is fair?
> >>
> >> That is like asking how much is a the proper amount to pay a school
> >> teacher, a bank clerk, a surgeon, or a professional athlete.
> >>
> >> The best answer is: whatever each of them is being paid at any given
> >> time.
> >
> >I see. So no-one is ever overpaid, and no-one is ever underpaid. And
no-one
> >is ever overtaxed, and no-one is ever undertaxed. Whatever conditions
exist,
> >in a democracy, are always exactly right.
>
> That is essentially correct. If a baseball player can get a long-term
> contract for a quarter of a *b*illion dollars, as Alex Rodriguez has,
> who has the right to say that he doesn't deserve it? If daycare
> workers can't get much above minimum wage, who is to say that they are
> worth much more? Ours is a *demand* economy. In the long run we all
> get what we're worth in the general scheme of things.
>
> As for levels of taxation, our representative democratic processes
> work so as to provide the people with periodic opportunities to
> pass judgment on their legislators.
>
> When a governing party is seen to be spendthrift, and over-taxing the
> people, and when large numbers of voters lose confidence in its fiscal
> prudence, it is thrown out of office.
>
> Conversely, when a government throws large sums of money at the
> already affluent in the form of huge tax reductions, and in doing so
> loses the ability to finance adequately, widely popular programs -
> education, health-care, environmental protection - its days in office
> will be numbered too.
>
> The knowledge that electors will not accept either too much or too
> little taxation keeps governments "honest". A highly socialist
> government will not unduly "soak the rich", and a highly conservative
> government will not slash taxes to the point that its programs cannot
> be funded, since both hope to retain office. Governing parties have
> to "please most of the people most of the time" They need not
> "please all of the people all of the time".
>
> The term "snake in a tube" has been applied to this situation.
The problem with all this is that come election time, there are perhaps a
hundred important issues, and about 3 viable parties to vote for. So you
must choose the one that best represents your views, even though you do not
agree with their platform on many issues. When was the last time you agreed
with all the planks of the party you voted for? It has never happened to me.
<snip>
>
> As left and right-leaning partries succeed one another in government,
> there will be *some* variation in tax levels -the writhing of the
> snake - but there will always be upper and lower limits on taxation -
> the confines of the tube.
>
> >> Our legislators do not appoint themselves. They are elected. If they
> >> hope to be re-elected, they understand that they must please at least
> >> a plurality of their constituents.
> >>
> >> The only proof one needs that the current level of taxation is
> >> acceptable comes in acknowledging that it has been arrived at by
> >> the Canadian democratic political process.
> >
> >There are many examples where laws are enacted, or exist, that are NOT
> >supported by the majority of Canadians.
>
> I am not certain on what you are basing that statement.
>
> Are you perhaps considering the results of certain public opinion
> polls?
Yes. How else can one know what is the general opinion of the population on
a specific issue?
>
> You might care to give me an example of a law that a considerable
> majority of Canadians oppose in your opinion.
Immigration policy & capital punishment are two that come to mind.
>
> In my experience, changes have been made to any law which has not had
> the support of a majority of the people. The "Young Offenders Act",
> which is currently being replaced, is an example of this.
After how long? It took literally decades to change a policy that was
unpopular from its very inception.
>
> Perhaps you consider gun registration to be widely unpopular. If so,
> you are ignoring that fact that Canada is a highly urbanised country,
> and that the great majority of people in our large cities are happy
> with gun control measures. A highly vocal minority can sometimes
> leave one with a false impression.
Could you give me a cite that demonstrates that the "great majority of
people in our large cities are happy with gun control measures" including
the order-of-magnitude cost overruns? Thank you.
<snip>
>
> >I take it you feel that taxes in Ontario should be raised? By how much?
>
> The level of taxation in every Canadian province should be high enough
> to provide the people with the level of essential government services
> that *most of them* desire.
>
> If most people think that the education system is under-funded, taxes
> should be raised to provide additional funding.
>
> Living in society is a co-operative undertaking. It requires each of
> us to be concerned not only with our personal requirements, but also
> with the requirements of others in our communities.
>
> That's essentially what Hillel pointed out 2000 years ago.
>
> [1] " If I am not for myself, who will be?"
> [2] " If I am only for myself, who am I?"
>
> If one considers only his first question, one sees no reason to pay
> taxes at all.
>
> If one considers both questions, one views taxation as necessary
> to one's functioning as a responsible social being, and one is willing
> to accept the level of taxation that is arrived at through the
> democratic process.
>
> Those who consider themselves over-taxed can always vote for
> tax-cutting political parties. Those who consider that important
> programs are being inadequately funded can always vote for their
> opponents.
>
> In the fullness of time a level of taxation acceptable to the majority
> will be maintained, while there will always be the possibility for
> adjustments that outside conditions dictate.
Okay, now how about an actual * number*? How much should taxes be increased
in Ontario?
Cheers,
Jennifer
John Carrick wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 01:56:23 GMT, "Jennifer Wainwright"
> <JenniferWainwright@no-spam> wrote:
Lecture on democracy and how the government does what the majority wants
is snipped. I guess the problem is that I live in an area of Canada
(Western Canada) where the majority of the people don't agree with the
government.
I guess our choice is to either live with it or leave. Since we have
repeatedly voted against the present government.
> Perhaps you consider gun registration to be widely unpopular. If so,
> you are ignoring that fact that Canada is a highly urbanised country,
> and that the great majority of people in our large cities are happy
> with gun control measures. A highly vocal minority can sometimes
> leave one with a false impression.
This is a great example as the people that are most infavor of gun
registration are those that are no affected by it. Yes, people in
Toronto like gun laws because they are ill informed. Most don't realize
that 'hand guns' (ones that are most likely used in crime) have had much
stricter regulations to abide by, than the new gun registration, for
many years.
It is the people living in Western Canada who are in disagreement with
the law because it is a total waste of time and money to get every
farmer in the country to register his shotguns and rifles. Not to
mention that registration of guns will have no impact on crime levels.
The only impact it will have is on Taxation Levels.
But as you say ... we live in a democracy. So we either live with it or
leave. I hope sooner than later.
Todd
>
>
>>>Whenever there has been a widespread enough feeling that taxes have
>>>become burdensome, they have been eased.
>>>
>>>And when there is a widespread feeling that taxation is inadequate for
>>>the provision of a level of services that most people desire - as in
>>>Ontario today - we throw the under-taxing government out on its ass.
>>
>
>>I take it you feel that taxes in Ontario should be raised? By how much?
>
>
> The level of taxation in every Canadian province should be high enough
> to provide the people with the level of essential government services
> that *most of them* desire.
>
> If most people think that the education system is under-funded, taxes
> should be raised to provide additional funding.
>
> Living in society is a co-operative undertaking. It requires each of
> us to be concerned not only with our personal requirements, but also
> with the requirements of others in our communities.
>
> That's essentially what Hillel pointed out 2000 years ago.
>
> [1] " If I am not for myself, who will be?"
> [2] " If I am only for myself, who am I?"
>
> If one considers only his first question, one sees no reason to pay
> taxes at all.
>
> If one considers both questions, one views taxation as necessary
> to one's functioning as a responsible social being, and one is willing
> to accept the level of taxation that is arrived at through the
> democratic process.
>
> Those who consider themselves over-taxed can always vote for
> tax-cutting political parties. Those who consider that important
> programs are being inadequately funded can always vote for their
> opponents.
>
> In the fullness of time a level of taxation acceptable to the majority
> will be maintained, while there will always be the possibility for
> adjustments that outside conditions dictate.
On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 20:45:11 GMT, .BitHead. <bithead@no-spam>
wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 19:54:24 GMT, John Carrick <jcarr@no-spam>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:29:14 GMT, nobody in particular <none@no-spam>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> John Carrick <jcarr@no-spam> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Are you so mentally challenged as to think seriously that I am
>>>> preparedto undertake a serious dialogue with someone who:
>>>>
>>>> [1] Calls himself "Bithead"?
>>>>
>>>> and
>>>>
>>>> [b] Refers to me by my surname alone?
>>>>
>>>> Wrong!
>>>>
>>>> The only sort of comment that I have for someone of your ilk is
>>>> one like this in which I give you your right-wing exremist pedigree.
>>>
>>>Fascinating.
>>
>>Not at all. It's ordinary really.
>>
>>>You never raise these objections when your ideological allies do the
>>>same things to your antagonists...
>>
>>Why would I? You want me to comb the newsgroups for liberals who
>>come here under stupid pseudonyms and call people by their surnames
>>alone?
>
>No, we want you to engage in actual debate with actual facts.
>You use any excuse possible to duck out of any discussion containing
>these.
>
ROTFL, find any 911 terrorists sneaking over the Canada US border
lately bit.brain? Talk about no respect for facts. He won't even
believe John Ashcroft.
>
>>
>>No thanks. I'm a progressive, not an imbecile.
>
>I rather thought the two were one in the same.
>You reinforce that image, daily.
>
>
>>
>>I have stated here on numerous occasions that I think that those who
>>participate in these discussions - whether from left, centre, or
>>right - and use nicknames, exhibit a lack of courage.
>
>
>Then why run from them? Why not defeat the arguments?
>Is it possibly because you can't?
>
So why exactly does someone in Rochester NY feel the need to troll
through Canadian the newsgroups (bc.politics, ab.politics,
sk.politics,ont.politics, can.politics)? Maybe he's getting his ass
whipped in US newsgroups and figures life is easier here?
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 02:26:37 GMT, nobody in particular <none@no-spam>
wrote:
>In article <r3lcfv07d2in902qq5eqd77db9om43hj07@no-spam>,
> John Carrick <jcarr@no-spam> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 00:47:17 GMT, "Jennifer Wainwright"
>> <JenniferWainwright@no-spam> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"John Carrick" <jcarr@no-spam> wrote in message
>> >news:q9mbfvocqu36gukfmir83ssjhmbqskdo2r@no-spam
>> >> On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 00:47:38 GMT, Todd Brasseur
>> >> <nbrass@no-spam> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >John Carrick wrote:
>> >> [Remaining content read and then deleted.]
>>
>> >[ditto]
>>
>> A good decision. My more discursive posts are likely beyond your
>> comprehension.
>>
>> [Don't be offended. I must be allowed my attempts at humour.]
>>
>> >I still haven't seen you answer the original question of this thread: vis:
>> >How much taxes is fair?
>>
>> That is like asking how much is a the proper amount to pay a school
>> teacher, a bank clerk, a surgeon, or a professional athlete.
>>
>> The best answer is: whatever each of them is being paid at any given
>> time.
>>
>> Our legislators do not appoint themselves. They are elected. If they
>> hope to be re-elected, they understand that they must please at least
>> a plurality of their constituents.
>>
>> The only proof one needs that the current level of taxation is
>> acceptable comes in acknowledging that it has been arrived at by
>> the Canadian democratic political process.
>>
>> Whenever there has been a widespread enough feeling that taxes have
>> become burdensome, they have been eased.
>>
>> And when there is a widespread feeling that taxation is inadequate for
>> the provision of a level of services that most people desire - as in
>> Ontario today - we throw the under-taxing government out on its ass.
>>
>> See you in September, Mr. Eves.
>
>So basically, if 6 people out of 10 decide to tax the 4 richest to
>subsistence levels, that's alright, huh? After all, it's democratic!
Name someone who has been taxed to 'subsistence levels'. You cannot
and you know you cannot so this is a red herring (sorry if you don't
like 'red' things). If the truly wealthy cannot afford a 3rd BMW this
year I don't have a lot of sympathy. I do have some for a woman
wondering where she and her children can find a safe place to live
after her time in the abused women's shelter runs out.
The fact is most of the taxes are paid by the middle class for two
reasons. 1. The poor have no money. 2. The truly Wealthy have lawyers
accountants and politicians they pay to put their money beyond the
reach of taxes.
Say for example our family income is $100,000 a year, am I 'wealthy'?
Only in the eyes of the farthest left reaches of the NDP. But am I
'poor', I don't think that case can be made, except maybe compared to
Conrad Black. So not having an army of professionals to protect my
money from the tax man my only option is to vote for a party that I
think will provide the services I want from government at a tax level
I think is acceptable. As another poster pointed out when was the last
time one party promised to govern EXACTLY as you wish? So you make the
best choice you can come election time.
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:14:41 GMT, John Carrick <jcarr@no-spam>
wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 01:56:23 GMT, "Jennifer Wainwright"
><JenniferWainwright@no-spam> wrote:
>
>
>>> >> >John Carrick wrote:
>>> >> [Remaining content read and then deleted.]
>>>
>>> >[ditto]
>>>
>>> A good decision. My more discursive posts are likely beyond your
>>> comprehension.
>>>
>>> [Don't be offended. I must be allowed my attempts at humour.]
>>
>>Perhaps, with the great wisdom that your "more discursive posts" exhibit,
>>you could explain (to someone with such limited comprehension as myself),
>>where the "humour" in "My more discursive posts are likely beyond your
>>comprehension" is to be found?
>
>You don't appear to understand that I was laughing at myself, not at
>you.
>
>That is not surprising, since self-deprecation is rare. Almost
>everyone prefers always to laugh at others, rather than at him or
>herself.
>
>When I jokingly suggested that you might not understand my arguments,
>I was being deliberately pedantic. Of course there was no reason to
>believe that you could not understand me! The fun was in my
>pretending to assume that you must be dull-witted.
>
>If that is overly complex, I must plead that I can be overly complex..
>
>>> >I still haven't seen you answer the original question of this thread:
>>vis:
>>> >How much taxes is fair?
>>>
>>> That is like asking how much is a the proper amount to pay a school
>>> teacher, a bank clerk, a surgeon, or a professional athlete.
>>>
>>> The best answer is: whatever each of them is being paid at any given
>>> time.
>>
>>I see. So no-one is ever overpaid, and no-one is ever underpaid. And no-one
>>is ever overtaxed, and no-one is ever undertaxed. Whatever conditions exist,
>>in a democracy, are always exactly right.
>
>That is essentially correct. If a baseball player can get a long-term
>contract for a quarter of a *b*illion dollars, as Alex Rodriguez has,
>who has the right to say that he doesn't deserve it? If daycare
>workers can't get much above minimum wage, who is to say that they are
>worth much more? Ours is a *demand* economy. In the long run we all
>get what we're worth in the general scheme of things.
>
>As for levels of taxation, our representative democratic processes
>work so as to provide the people with periodic opportunities to
>pass judgment on their legislators.
>
> When a governing party is seen to be spendthrift, and over-taxing the
>people, and when large numbers of voters lose confidence in its fiscal
>prudence, it is thrown out of office.
>
>Conversely, when a government throws large sums of money at the
>already affluent in the form of huge tax reductions, and in doing so
>loses the ability to finance adequately, widely popular programs -
>education, health-care, environmental protection - its days in office
>will be numbered too.
>
>The knowledge that electors will not accept either too much or too
>little taxation keeps governments "honest". A highly socialist
>government will not unduly "soak the rich", and a highly conservative
>government will not slash taxes to the point that its programs cannot
>be funded, since both hope to retain office. Governing parties have
>to "please most of the people most of the time" They need not
>"please all of the people all of the time".
>
>The term "snake in a tube" has been applied to this situation.
>
>As left and right-leaning partries succeed one another in government,
>there will be *some* variation in tax levels -the writhing of the
>snake - but there will always be upper and lower limits on taxation -
>the confines of the tube.
>
>>> Our legislators do not appoint themselves. They are elected. If they
>>> hope to be re-elected, they understand that they must please at least
>>> a plurality of their constituents.
>>>
>>> The only proof one needs that the current level of taxation is
>>> acceptable comes in acknowledging that it has been arrived at by
>>> the Canadian democratic political process.
>>
>>There are many examples where laws are enacted, or exist, that are NOT
>>supported by the majority of Canadians.
>
>I am not certain on what you are basing that statement.
>
>Are you perhaps considering the results of certain public opinion
>polls?
>
>You might care to give me an example of a law that a considerable
>majority of Canadians oppose in your opinion.
>
>In my experience, changes have been made to any law which has not had
>the support of a majority of the people. The "Young Offenders Act",
>which is currently being replaced, is an example of this.
>
>Perhaps you consider gun registration to be widely unpopular. If so,
>you are ignoring that fact that Canada is a highly urbanised country,
>and that the great majority of people in our large cities are happy
>with gun control measures. A highly vocal minority can sometimes
>leave one with a false impression.
>
>>> Whenever there has been a widespread enough feeling that taxes have
>>> become burdensome, they have been eased.
>>>
>>> And when there is a widespread feeling that taxation is inadequate for
>>> the provision of a level of services that most people desire - as in
>>> Ontario today - we throw the under-taxing government out on its ass.
>
>>I take it you feel that taxes in Ontario should be raised? By how much?
>
>The level of taxation in every Canadian province should be high enough
>to provide the people with the level of essential government services
>that *most of them* desire.
>
>If most people think that the education system is under-funded, taxes
>should be raised to provide additional funding.
>
>Living in society is a co-operative undertaking. It requires each of
>us to be concerned not only with our personal requirements, but also
>with the requirements of others in our communities.
>
>That's essentially what Hillel pointed out 2000 years ago.
>
>[1] " If I am not for myself, who will be?"
>[2] " If I am only for myself, who am I?"
>
>If one considers only his first question, one sees no reason to pay
>taxes at all.
>
>If one considers both questions, one views taxation as necessary
>to one's functioning as a responsible social being, and one is willing
>to accept the level of taxation that is arrived at through the
>democratic process.
>
>Those who consider themselves over-taxed can always vote for
>tax-cutting political parties. Those who consider that important
>programs are being inadequately funded can always vote for their
>opponents.
>
>In the fullness of time a level of taxation acceptable to the majority
>will be maintained, while there will always be the possibility for
>adjustments that outside conditions dictate.
bs. mister carrick
taxation is biggest scam on the earth,
you are being led on bankers leash
and its a very short one too
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:43:38 GMT, John Carrick <jcarr@no-spam>
wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 02:26:37 GMT, nobody in particular <none@no-spam>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <r3lcfv07d2in902qq5eqd77db9om43hj07@no-spam>,
>> John Carrick <jcarr@no-spam> wrote:
>
>>> And when there is a widespread feeling that taxation is inadequate for
>>> the provision of a level of services that most people desire - as in
>>> Ontario today - we throw the under-taxing government out on its ass.
>
>>So basically, if 6 people out of 10 decide to tax the 4 richest to
>>subsistence levels, that's alright, huh? After all, it's democratic!
>
>[1] Please, don't employ the solecism "alright" in your posts to me,
>unless you also intend to use "alwrong".
>
>The term is "all right".
>
>All right?
>
>[2] Your question deals with a hypothetical rather than a real case.
>Wealthy Canadians have huge amounts of discretionary income
>with which to indulge their interests.
>
>[3] Yes, Parliament is supreme. If a tax regime were introduced
>that reduced Frank Stronach to poverty, that would be perfectly legal
>under our system.
>
>There are several reasons that is not going to happen.
>
>a) It would be counter-productive, since it would wipe out incentives
>for Canadians to found and operate successful enterprises.
>
>b) Most of our major political parties have been financed and
>controlled by the Stronachs of Canada. Who pays the piper calls the
>tune.
>
>c) Canada is a largely free-enterprise democracy where effort is seen
>to deserve rewards. Most Canadians do not begrudge hard-working
>entrepreneurs a reasonable level of financial success.
>
>One possible result of new legislation that will reduce the dependence
>of our poiltical parties on corporate and union donations is that the
>tax system may be altered.
>
>Should that happen, people like you will have much more to wail about.
>
>Good!
>
>As for whether democracy always produces fairness, I'd say, "Of course
>not." It is, however, better than any other system that has been
>tried. If we could get proportional representation, our Canadian
>system would be much improved though.
"Once a nation parts with the control of its currency and credit, it
matters not who makes that nation's laws.
Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation.
Until the control ofof the issue of currency and credit is restored to
government and recognized as its most conspicous and sacred
responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of Parliament and of
democracy is iddle and futile "
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:36:22 GMT, John Carrick <jcarr@no-spam>
wrote:
>
>What is important to me - that seems not to matter a damn to you - is
>that all Canadians be prepared to share in the marvelous prosperity
>that this country affords.
>
no country will prosper with usury system,
remember, Bank of Canada is a private corporation
>
>Social justice is a noble objective.
>
if you seek social justice
get familiar with Social Credit
>
>How the hell do you have the audacity to use Bibical language to
>oppose the principle of Christian charity?
>
>And calling taxation "theft" is the last refuge of an entirely
>self-interested scoundrel.
>
taxation is not a "theft", its a THEFT !
>I am delighted to pay all of my taxes.
>
>But I'm even *more* delighted when I think of overly selfish,
>right-wing extremist pinheads like you being forced to pay your share
>unwillingly.
>
all cos you confuse social beings with socialists
>Now see whether you can come up with something new, can't you?
>Your fifty-year-old material is unacceptable. <laugh>
I will, read the post titled
" The bankers, legalized forgers "
thank you
Andy
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 10:44:29 GMT, aztecsrnus@no-spam (KenB) wrote:
>Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote:
>>He did say something else. You need to sharpen your reading skills and learn
>>to stop seeing 'neo-cons' behind every bush.
It's known as "calling a spade a spade" actually.
>Anyone who "knows" John via these means know(s) he is quite insane.
Another right-wing extremist jolted out of the hornet's nest?
Good!
"Insane" is a legal term by the way. At this point it describes your
post far better than it does mine.
>He covers his own mediocrity...
Now that's hardly specific. Why didn't you mention several of the
ways in which I demonstrate my "mediocrity".
---->Am I insufficently articulate for you for instance? You can talk
rings around me, can you?
---->Is my academic record markedly inferior to yours perhaps? Do you
have *four* university degrees to my mere 3?
In fact, what troubles you about me has nothing to do with any
supposed mediocrity.
I anger you with my criticisms of your political values. I intensely
dislike social conservatism, and I say so. I am in favour of social
justice, and I say so. That drives you wild enough to call me
"insane".
I suggest that you try being honest about why I annoy you, instead
of offering this fiction about my being too mediocre for you to
stomach.
If you can't do that, I suggest that you fuck off back to chatting
with the other right-wing crazies here, instead of directing your
libels at me.
You demand respect for *your* point of view, but you seem incapable of
showing respect for those who differ from you.
In article <314chvkq5pq0nkdnl6bkvc88hae95nlj2f@no-spam>, John Carrick <jcarr@no-spam> wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 10:44:29 GMT, aztecsrnus@no-spam (KenB) wrote:
>
>>Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote:
>
>>>He did say something else. You need to sharpen your reading skills and learn
>>>to stop seeing 'neo-cons' behind every bush.
>
>It's known as "calling a spade a spade" actually.
>
>>Anyone who "knows" John via these means know(s) he is quite insane.
>
>Another right-wing extremist jolted out of the hornet's nest?
>
>Good!
>
>"Insane" is a legal term by the way. At this point it describes your
>post far better than it does mine.
>
>>He covers his own mediocrity...
>
>Now that's hardly specific. Why didn't you mention several of the
>ways in which I demonstrate my "mediocrity".
>
>---->Am I insufficently articulate for you for instance? You can talk
>rings around me, can you?
>
>---->Is my academic record markedly inferior to yours perhaps? Do you
>have *four* university degrees to my mere 3?
>
>In fact, what troubles you about me has nothing to do with any
>supposed mediocrity.
>
>I anger you with my criticisms of your political values. I intensely
>dislike social conservatism, and I say so. I am in favour of social
>justice, and I say so. That drives you wild enough to call me
>"insane".
>
>I suggest that you try being honest about why I annoy you, instead
>of offering this fiction about my being too mediocre for you to
>stomach.
>
>If you can't do that, I suggest that you fuck off back to chatting
>with the other right-wing crazies here, instead of directing your
>libels at me.
>
>You demand respect for *your* point of view, but you seem incapable of
>showing respect for those who differ from you.
See.
Ken
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 12:19:02 GMT, <nshinede@no-spam> wrote:
>Self centered! Selfish? Just because he does not want to give his hard
>earned tax money to every liberal nitwit cause with it's snout in the tax
>money.
>
>And "anti-social" too, yet!
An amazing comment, given Carrick's general deportment.
----
_____________________________________________________________
/BitHead's Place: Political commentary from the REAL world. /\
/ http://home.rochester.rr.com/bitheads/ _/ /\
/Bit's weekly commentaries also available internationally: / \/
/ http://www.rightpoint.ca/ http://clik.to/bithead/ \ /
/ http://greysanctuary.com/columnists/bithead/index.asp /\
__________________________________________________________/ /
\ __________________________________________________________\/
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 02:26:37 GMT, nobody in particular <none@no-spam>
wrote:
>So basically, if 6 people out of 10 decide to tax the 4 richest to
>subsistence levels, that's alright, huh? After all, it's democratic!
That's quite obviously a straw man.
No such thing has happened.
Nothing even vaguely like that has happened.
Nothing even remotely like that will ever happen.
Find someone else who is willing to play such silly games with you.
In article <omcie1pi726e8r3f4matehs2qqgtvqop01@no-spam>,
JohnCarrick <NOSPAM@no-spam> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 02:26:37 GMT, nobody in particular <none@no-spam>
> wrote:
>
> >So basically, if 6 people out of 10 decide to tax the 4 richest to
> >subsistence levels, that's alright, huh? After all, it's democratic!
>
> That's quite obviously a straw man.
>
> No such thing has happened.
>
> Nothing even vaguely like that has happened.
>
> Nothing even remotely like that will ever happen.
>
> Find someone else who is willing to play such silly games with you.
It's completely on point, John.
The fact that it happens with millions of people rather than 10 doesn't
change the basic nature of what is happening. The injustice of it is
just hidden by the large number of people, it hasn't gone away.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
I think there should be a flat tax for all individual wage earners.
There should be some tax incentive for those who operate business and
employ others.
"JohnCarrick" <NOSPAM@no-spam> wrote in message
news:omcie1pi726e8r3f4matehs2qqgtvqop01@no-spam
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 02:26:37 GMT, nobody in particular <none@no-spam>
> wrote:
>
> >So basically, if 6 people out of 10 decide to tax the 4 richest to
> >subsistence levels, that's alright, huh? After all, it's democratic!
>
> That's quite obviously a straw man.
>
> No such thing has happened.
>
> Nothing even vaguely like that has happened.
>
> Nothing even remotely like that will ever happen.
>
> Find someone else who is willing to play such silly games with you.
So you gutless moron, if it not government dictating to the people you have
a big problem with that, taxes should be volunteer only you kooky useful
government terrorist...
Jethro <jgordonstevens@no-spam> wrote in message:
news:<1122587383.001082.123200@no-spam>
>I think there should be a flat tax for all individual wage earners.
>There should be some tax incentive for those who operate business and
>employ others.
>
>
Flat taxes penalize the low and middle wage earners, that's why nobody has
them. Wealthier people have better opportunities due to their wealth to
defer taxes or avoid them completely. A simple example is the RRSP system in
Canada which few make the full (tax deductible) contribution every year but
those in the upper income brackets.
> Flat taxes penalize the low and middle wage earners, that's why nobody has
> them. Wealthier people have better opportunities due to their wealth to
> defer taxes or avoid them completely. A simple example is the RRSP system
> in
> Canada which few make the full (tax deductible) contribution every year
> but
> those in the upper income brackets.
RRSP's actually cause the government to take in extra revenue, as opposed to
reduced revenue for the upper income bracket people. Governments are able
to borrow at rock-bottom rates, 'invest' the money into RRSP's that generate
higher returns (by 'investment', i mean, giving the tax breaks), and then
when an individual retires the government:
a) achieves a return on their investment by taxing everything that comes
out of the RRSP.
b) doesn't have to pay out GIS and can sometimes reduce OAS benefits.
So, in essence, those who are making full RRSP contributions every year are
paying even more tax than people who aren't making such contributions.
Plus RRSP's, unlike ownership interests in small businesses, are much harder
to evade tax on. Every dollar pulled out of a RRSP is taxed as income.
The government loves that aspect as well and makes more money because they
have greater control.
ztip guy <dont.spam.me@no-spam> wrote in message:
news:<11eirnbc5bac661@no-spam>
>
>
>> Flat taxes penalize the low and middle wage earners, that's why nobody has
>> them. Wealthier people have better opportunities due to their wealth to
>> defer taxes or avoid them completely. A simple example is the RRSP system
>> in
>> Canada which few make the full (tax deductible) contribution every year
>> but
>> those in the upper income brackets.
>
>RRSP's actually cause the government to take in extra revenue, as opposed to
>reduced revenue for the upper income bracket people. Governments are able
>to borrow at rock-bottom rates, 'invest' the money into RRSP's that generate
>higher returns (by 'investment',
Not true, you're thinking of government bonds, not RRSP's which are usually
put into mutual funds, not government bonds.
>
>a) achieves a return on their investment by taxing everything that comes
>out of the RRSP.
At a considerable lower rate of income from the time they were invested,
usually through an RIF.
>b) doesn't have to pay out GIS and can sometimes reduce OAS benefits.
Not necessarily because most people convert it to a RIF and draw on it at a
lower level of income. Most times, people drawing on RIF's are within the
eligibility level of a GIS. GIS's are income tested and generally
>
>So, in essence, those who are making full RRSP contributions every year are
>paying even more tax than people who aren't making such contributions.
No, your logic is flawed, see above.
>
>Plus RRSP's, unlike ownership interests in small businesses, are much harder
>to evade tax on. Every dollar pulled out of a RRSP is taxed as income.
At a substantially lower rate than when they were invested.
>The government loves that aspect as well and makes more money because they
>have greater control.
They are a tax break, your obvious ignorance of how RRSP's work shows that
you need to understand how they work. Until then, your comments are not
valid.
>
>
>
B. Taylor <taylorbri@no-spam> wrote in message:
news:<MPG.1d533bed3b161eea98b717@no-spam>
>>b) doesn't have to pay out GIS and can sometimes reduce OAS benefits.
>
>b) doesn't have to pay out GIS and can sometimes reduce OAS benefits.
Not necessarily because most people convert it to a RIF and draw on it at a
lower level of income which is taxed lower as well. The Guaranteed Income
Supplement is a federal program that provides money to low-income seniors who
receive Old Age Security (OAS). The OAS pension is payable at a flat rate
regardless of income, but the GIS is reduced by $1 for each $2 of monthly
income. GIS eligibility depends not only on an individual's income, but also
upon his or her marital or common-law status.
Otherwise, it's there to take the burden off the taxpayer because some people
don't need a GIS. Why pay out to someone who doesn't require the money
because they have additional sources of income?
B. Taylor <taylorbri@no-spam> wrote in message:
news:<MPG.1d533dd630ec9f6098b718@no-spam>
>B. Taylor <taylorbri@no-spam> wrote in message:
>news:<MPG.1d533bed3b161eea98b717@no-spam>
>>>b) doesn't have to pay out GIS and can sometimes reduce OAS benefits.
>>
>>b) doesn't have to pay out GIS and can sometimes reduce OAS benefits.
>
>Not necessarily because most people convert it to a RIF and draw on it at a
>lower level of income which is taxed lower as well. The Guaranteed Income
>Supplement is a federal program that provides money to low-income seniors who
>receive Old Age Security (OAS). The OAS pension is payable at a flat rate
>regardless of income, but the GIS is reduced by $1 for each $2 of monthly
>income. GIS eligibility depends not only on an individual's income, but also
>upon his or her marital or common-law status.
>
>Otherwise, it's there to take the burden off the taxpayer because some people
>don't need a GIS. Why pay out to someone who doesn't require the money
>because they have additional sources of income?
>
In addition:
"The OAS pension itself is a uniform demogrant which was equal to $413.70 in
July 1999. Individuals who do not fully meet residence requirements may be
entitled to a partial OAS benefit. OAS benefits have been indexed to the
Consumer Price Index (CPI) since 1972. OAS benefits are fully taxable. In
addition, there is a clawback of OAS benefits from very high income
individuals; the OAS for an individual is reduced by 15 cents per dollar of
personal net income exceeding $53,215. The OAS basic benefit and its
component GIS/SPA benefits are financed from general taxation revenues."
Once again, it's clawed back from people who have a retirement income. And
$53,215 is a pretty good retirement income. That's not what I'd call taking
money from a poor person's hands.
http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/asp/gateway.asp?hr=en/cs/sp/sdc/evaluation/sp-
ah065e/page06.shtml&hs=rzp
"B. Taylor" <taylorbri@no-spam> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d533bed3b161eea98b717@no-spam
> ztip guy <dont.spam.me@no-spam> wrote in message:
> news:<11eirnbc5bac661@no-spam>
>>
>>
>>> Flat taxes penalize the low and middle wage earners, that's why nobody
>>> has
>>> them. Wealthier people have better opportunities due to their wealth to
>>> defer taxes or avoid them completely. A simple example is the RRSP
>>> system
>>> in
>>> Canada which few make the full (tax deductible) contribution every year
>>> but
>>> those in the upper income brackets.
>>
>>RRSP's actually cause the government to take in extra revenue, as opposed
>>to
>>reduced revenue for the upper income bracket people. Governments are able
>>to borrow at rock-bottom rates, 'invest' the money into RRSP's that
>>generate
>>higher returns (by 'investment',
>
> Not true, you're thinking of government bonds, not RRSP's which are
> usually
> put into mutual funds, not government bonds.
>>
>>a) achieves a return on their investment by taxing everything that comes
>>out of the RRSP.
>
> At a considerable lower rate of income from the time they were invested,
> usually through an RIF.
>
>>b) doesn't have to pay out GIS and can sometimes reduce OAS benefits.
>
> Not necessarily because most people convert it to a RIF and draw on it at
> a
> lower level of income. Most times, people drawing on RIF's are within the
> eligibility level of a GIS. GIS's are income tested and generally
>
>
>>
>>So, in essence, those who are making full RRSP contributions every year
>>are
>>paying even more tax than people who aren't making such contributions.
>
> No, your logic is flawed, see above.
>>
>>Plus RRSP's, unlike ownership interests in small businesses, are much
>>harder
>>to evade tax on. Every dollar pulled out of a RRSP is taxed as income.
>
> At a substantially lower rate than when they were invested.
>
>>The government loves that aspect as well and makes more money because they
>>have greater control.
>
>
> They are a tax break, your obvious ignorance of how RRSP's work shows that
> you need to understand how they work. Until then, your comments are not
> valid.
>>
>>
>>
That's a crock of shit. Those that have the RRSP's and withdraw them at
retirement risk loosing the GIS and and OAS benifits. If the income reaches
a certai level they are taxed at some of the highest rates. One study I read
several years ago and I admit I haven't run the numbers throough a program,
places the marginal tax for those people at 70%. How's that for benefits for
the rich??? Eh??
Now if you follow tzip's advice and invest into a business venture where you
can control your income to some extent there may be oportunities to keep
your income below those thresholds and draw full benifits of the socialist
programs. Catch is you need to have guts enough to get into a successful
business with all it's responsibilites and challenges.
Most working slobs like ourselves are screwing ourselves. Or more correctly,
the gov't is.
Go for it. Go into business.
>>RRSP's actually cause the government to take in extra revenue, as opposed
>>to
>>reduced revenue for the upper income bracket people. Governments are able
>>to borrow at rock-bottom rates, 'invest' the money into RRSP's that
>>generate
>>higher returns (by 'investment',
>
> Not true, you're thinking of government bonds, not RRSP's which are
> usually
> put into mutual funds, not government bonds.
Let's see. The government borrows at the risk-free rate, right now, around
4.5% on 30-year debt. They 'lend' that money (through a tax break) to
individual taxpayers by way of RRSP tax deductions.
Individual taxpayers invest the money into investments that earn at least
4.5%, usually substantially more.
When the individual taxpayer retires, they withdraw from their RRSP/RRIF
account. Since the money has grown >4.5% and they are taxed on it, the
government's achieves a return on their initial investment of greater than
4.5%.
>>a) achieves a return on their investment by taxing everything that comes
>>out of the RRSP.
>
> At a considerable lower rate of income from the time they were invested,
> usually through an RIF.
Not usually. If you look at the incremental rates of taxation for most
senior citizens, the rates are in the 50%-55% range once you include GIS/OAS
clawbacks, GST rebates, and the reduction in other 'social' benefits such as
low-cost prescription drug coverage, low-cost subsidized housing , and
subsidized medical care.
>>b) doesn't have to pay out GIS and can sometimes reduce OAS benefits.
>
> Not necessarily because most people convert it to a RIF and draw on it at
> a
> lower level of income. Most times, people drawing on RIF's are within the
> eligibility level of a GIS. GIS's are income tested and generally
Obviously these people are/were not high-income taxpayers at the top tax
brackets if they are receiving GIS in their retirement. GIS cuts out
completely at or even before $20k/year income.
>>So, in essence, those who are making full RRSP contributions every year
>>are
>>paying even more tax than people who aren't making such contributions.
>
> No, your logic is flawed, see above.
See above, your logic is flawed. The incremental tax rates for senior
citizens once you build OAS and GIS into the picture is usually 50% or over.
Even worse than seniors experienced during their working years.
Does it make much sense to put away RRSP money when you are in a 35% tax
bracket, only to be in a 50% tax bracket as a senior? No. That is why
RRSP's are absolutely fabulous from the Government of Canada's point of
view.
>>Plus RRSP's, unlike ownership interests in small businesses, are much
>>harder
>>to evade tax on. Every dollar pulled out of a RRSP is taxed as income.
>
> At a substantially lower rate than when they were invested.
Not true.
>>The government loves that aspect as well and makes more money because they
>>have greater control.
>
> They are a tax break, your obvious ignorance of how RRSP's work shows that
> you need to understand how they work. Until then, your comments are not
> valid.
Go research how income tested benefits work, and how reduction in such
benefits amounts to a stealth means of taxation. Then I will consider your
comments to have some validity.
> Not necessarily because most people convert it to a RIF and draw on it at
> a
> lower level of income which is taxed lower as well. The Guaranteed Income
50% incremental tax rate is lower than the incremental tax rate most pay in
their working lives?
> Supplement is a federal program that provides money to low-income seniors
> who
> receive Old Age Security (OAS). The OAS pension is payable at a flat rate
> regardless of income, but the GIS is reduced by $1 for each $2 of monthly
Not true regarding the OAS pension. OAS is reduced above certain incomes.
Glad to see you agree with my statement that GIS-collecting seniors are
subject to at least a 50% incremental tax rate.
> Otherwise, it's there to take the burden off the taxpayer because some
> people
> don't need a GIS. Why pay out to someone who doesn't require the money
> because they have additional sources of income?
My original point was -- RRSP's allow Ottawa to tax more money out of
Canadians for wasteful spending than was ever possible before they existed.
True brilliance on the part of the governments that created them --
brainwash everyone with the whole concept that RRSP's are great for
retirement, but tax at least 50% of them away when one actually goes to
collect.
ztip guy <dont.spam.me@no-spam> wrote in message:
news:<11eiu23252fj752@no-spam>
>> Not necessarily because most people convert it to a RIF and draw on it at
>> a
>> lower level of income which is taxed lower as well. The Guaranteed Income
>
>50% incremental tax rate is lower than the incremental tax rate most pay in
>their working lives?
If you're in a low tax bracket, yes. Alberta taxes flat at 10% and most
Albertans pay more in provincial tax than other provinces because other
provinces have a graduated system.
>
>> Supplement is a federal program that provides money to low-income seniors
>> who
>> receive Old Age Security (OAS). The OAS pension is payable at a flat rate
>> regardless of income, but the GIS is reduced by $1 for each $2 of monthly
>
>Not true regarding the OAS pension. OAS is reduced above certain incomes.
It's clawed back beginning at an annual retirement income of just over
$53,000. I cited a government website dealing with the subject, what more
proof do you need?
That's not a low annual income amount by retirement standards.
>
>Glad to see you agree with my statement that GIS-collecting seniors are
>subject to at least a 50% incremental tax rate.
>
>> Otherwise, it's there to take the burden off the taxpayer because some
>> people
>> don't need a GIS. Why pay out to someone who doesn't require the money
>> because they have additional sources of income?
>
>My original point was -- RRSP's allow Ottawa to tax more money out of
>Canadians for wasteful spending than was ever possible before they existed.
>True brilliance on the part of the governments that created them --
>brainwash everyone with the whole concept that RRSP's are great for
>retirement, but tax at least 50% of them away when one actually goes to
>collect.
Where did you get this 50%? And what happens to the money they save in
income taxes (when they're making a higher amount of income in pre-
retirement)?
It goes into more RRSP's or most of the time, it goes into the economy
through consumer spending.
I don't think that you've done any work in the field, I have. It's
considered far more generous than the system in the USA or most developed
nations. The RRSP system is a good one and it's dependant on a scaled system
of income tax. Name one country which has a flat tax! Maybe an Arab Oil
nation where most things are paid for by oil revenues anyway, but no
developed nation uses such things because it's basically unfair to the low
income earners.
You can't attack a complex issue with a simple solution.
"B. Taylor" <taylorbri@no-spam> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d53449f4d94cacf98b71c@no-spam
> ztip guy <dont.spam.me@no-spam> wrote in message:
> news:<11eiu23252fj752@no-spam>
>>> Not necessarily because most people convert it to a RIF and draw on it
>>> at
>>> a
>>> lower level of income which is taxed lower as well. The Guaranteed
>>> Income
>>
>>50% incremental tax rate is lower than the incremental tax rate most pay
>>in
>>their working lives?
>
> If you're in a low tax bracket, yes. Alberta taxes flat at 10% and most
> Albertans pay more in provincial tax than other provinces because other
> provinces have a graduated system.
>>
>>> Supplement is a federal program that provides money to low-income
>>> seniors
>>> who
>>> receive Old Age Security (OAS). The OAS pension is payable at a flat
>>> rate
>>> regardless of income, but the GIS is reduced by $1 for each $2 of
>>> monthly
>>
>>Not true regarding the OAS pension. OAS is reduced above certain incomes.
>
> It's clawed back beginning at an annual retirement income of just over
> $53,000. I cited a government website dealing with the subject, what more
> proof do you need?
>
> That's not a low annual income amount by retirement standards.
>>
>>Glad to see you agree with my statement that GIS-collecting seniors are
>>subject to at least a 50% incremental tax rate.
>>
>>> Otherwise, it's there to take the burden off the taxpayer because some
>>> people
>>> don't need a GIS. Why pay out to someone who doesn't require the money
>>> because they have additional sources of income?
>>
>>My original point was -- RRSP's allow Ottawa to tax more money out of
>>Canadians for wasteful spending than was ever possible before they
>>existed.
>>True brilliance on the part of the governments that created them --
>>brainwash everyone with the whole concept that RRSP's are great for
>>retirement, but tax at least 50% of them away when one actually goes to
>>collect.
>
> Where did you get this 50%? And what happens to the money they save in
> income taxes (when they're making a higher amount of income in pre-
> retirement)?
>
> It goes into more RRSP's or most of the time, it goes into the economy
> through consumer spending.
>
> I don't think that you've done any work in the field, I have. It's
> considered far more generous than the system in the USA or most developed
> nations. The RRSP system is a good one and it's dependant on a scaled
> system
> of income tax. Name one country which has a flat tax! Maybe an Arab Oil
> nation where most things are paid for by oil revenues anyway, but no
> developed nation uses such things because it's basically unfair to the low
> income earners.
>
> You can't attack a complex issue with a simple solution.
Why is it unfair to unfair to low income earners? Why can you not just say
that whatever the poverty rate is 'flat tax' or any tax does not apply? If
there were to be a flat tax, what should the rate be?
> Where did you get this 50%? And what happens to the money they save in
> income taxes (when they're making a higher amount of income in pre-
> retirement)?
"The OAS pension is payable at a flat rate regardless of income, but the GIS
is reduced by $1 for each $2 of monthly."
Sounds like a 50% incremental tax rate to me, just on the GIS reduction.
When the government forgoes some revenue to give the RRSP tax break, the
result is, they have to borrow money in the bond market to finance
government expenditures. As I pointed out, this borrowing is very cheap
because governments are considered to be the best debtors possible,
currently at the rate of approx 4.5% over 30 years.
Individuals take the money, and invest it. It returns more than 4.5% in
portfolios of diversified investments. When the money is withdrawn from the
plan, the government takes a significant percentage of the original plan.
The money that they 'invested' in your RRSP has actually grown faster than
their cost of borrowing. The government is net money ahead because they
invested in your RRSP in the long run.
> I don't think that you've done any work in the field, I have. It's
No, but I have a solid understanding of the system, and can use a
calculator. I understand that a benefit disallowed or reduced is, in
essence, a stealth increase in taxation on an individual. And I understand
the concept that the Government of Canada leverages its ability to borrow
inexpensively and invest in individuals' RRSP accounts is enormously
beneficial to the Government insofar as sustaining revenue for wasteful
spending.
> You can't attack a complex issue with a simple solution.
The solution proposed by the Conservative Party of Canada in the most recent
election was moving to USA-style 'IRA' accounts, whereby an amount of money
could be contributed, on an after-tax basis, to a retirement account, could
grow tax-free, and then could be withdrawn in retirement completely tax free
and free of benefits income-testing provisions.
Such a system would be hugely beneficial to low-income earners who otherwise
would see their GIS benefits enormously reduced, by at least 50% (usually
more), for every dollar they saved within a RRSP.
What a pity that socialists who are unable to understand simple concepts of
taxation rallied against such a plan in the last election, when in fact, it
would be the most beneficial to low income earners who just want to put away
a few bucks for a better standard of living in retirement.
ztip guy <dont.spam.me@no-spam> wrote in message:
news:<11eivvoc05vdbac@no-spam>
>"The OAS pension is payable at a flat rate regardless of income, but the GIS
>is reduced by $1 for each $2 of monthly."
>
>Sounds like a 50% incremental tax rate to me, just on the GIS reduction.
>
FFS! The GIS is for LOW INCOME SENIORS only. What part of "low income" did
you not understand? It's not part of the OAS.
It was never for those who had saved in the first place.
Do you want an unsupportable government pension system or one that is viable?
If you want one that is unsupportable, give the GIS to everyone! It's a
supplement, that's why it's called a Guaranteed Income Supplement!
ztip guy <dont.spam.me@no-spam> wrote in message:
news:<11eivvoc05vdbac@no-spam>
>When the government forgoes some revenue to give the RRSP tax break, the
>result is, they have to borrow money in the bond market to finance
>government expenditures. As I pointed out, this borrowing is very cheap
>because governments are considered to be the best debtors possible,
>currently at the rate of approx 4.5% over 30 years.
Canada hasn't borrowed from the bond market to finance expenditures since
before 1994. Canada has been in a surplus situation since then. You're
living in the wrong decade. Go back to the 1980's where you belong! :)
>
>Individuals take the money, and invest it. It returns more than 4.5% in
>portfolios of diversified investments. When the money is withdrawn from the
>plan, the government takes a significant percentage of the original plan.
>The money that they 'invested' in your RRSP has actually grown faster than
>their cost of borrowing. The government is net money ahead because they
>invested in your RRSP in the long run.
>
They do not take a significant amount, it's usually at the lowest tax rate
because the income of the recipient is much lower because they're not
working. Far lower than the time it was put into the RRSP account and it
also grows tax free.
ztip guy <dont.spam.me@no-spam> wrote in message:
news:<11eivvoc05vdbac@no-spam>
>What a pity that socialists who are unable to understand simple concepts of
>taxation rallied against such a plan in the last election, when in fact, it
>would be the most beneficial to low income earners who just want to put away
>a few bucks for a better standard of living in retirement.
>
>
Socialists? You're the one who thinks that the government should give
everyone the GIS on top of their retirement earnings!
You're out of it. I'm afraid that the assumptions that you've made are way
off base and you really don't have a clue.
I'm tired of teaching you how things work, fill the holes in your argument
before you attempt a response next time. I'm not bothering with this
nonsense any more.
labatyd <mail@no-spam> wrote in message:
news:<11eitgan3ibbs66@no-spam>
>
>"B. Taylor" <taylorbri@no-spam> wrote in message
>news:MPG.1d533bed3b161eea98b717@no-spam
>> ztip guy <dont.spam.me@no-spam> wrote in message:
>> news:<11eirnbc5bac661@no-spam>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Flat taxes penalize the low and middle wage earners, that's why nobody
>>>> has
>>>> them. Wealthier people have better opportunities due to their wealth to
>>>> defer taxes or avoid them completely. A simple example is the RRSP
>>>> system
>>>> in
>>>> Canada which few make the full (tax deductible) contribution every year
>>>> but
>>>> those in the upper income brackets.
>>>
>>>RRSP's actually cause the government to take in extra revenue, as opposed
>>>to
>>>reduced revenue for the upper income bracket people. Governments are able
>>>to borrow at rock-bottom rates, 'invest' the money into RRSP's that
>>>generate
>>>higher returns (by 'investment',
>>
>> Not true, you're thinking of government bonds, not RRSP's which are
>> usually
>> put into mutual funds, not government bonds.
>>>
>>>a) achieves a return on their investment by taxing everything that comes
>>>out of the RRSP.
>>
>> At a considerable lower rate of income from the time they were invested,
>> usually through an RIF.
>>
>>>b) doesn't have to pay out GIS and can sometimes reduce OAS benefits.
>>
>> Not necessarily because most people convert it to a RIF and draw on it at
>> a
>> lower level of income. Most times, people drawing on RIF's are within the
>> eligibility level of a GIS. GIS's are income tested and generally
>>
>>
>>>
>>>So, in essence, those who are making full RRSP contributions every year
>>>are
>>>paying even more tax than people who aren't making such contributions.
>>
>> No, your logic is flawed, see above.
>>>
>>>Plus RRSP's, unlike ownership interests in small businesses, are much
>>>harder
>>>to evade tax on. Every dollar pulled out of a RRSP is taxed as income.
>>
>> At a substantially lower rate than when they were invested.
>>
>>>The government loves that aspect as well and makes more money because they
>>>have greater control.
>>
>>
>> They are a tax break, your obvious ignorance of how RRSP's work shows that
>> you need to understand how they work. Until then, your comments are not
>> valid.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>That's a crock of shit. Those that have the RRSP's and withdraw them at
>retirement risk loosing the GIS and and OAS benifits. If the income reaches
>a certai level they are taxed at some of the highest rates. One study I read
>several years ago and I admit I haven't run the numbers throough a program,
>places the marginal tax for those people at 70%. How's that for benefits for
>the rich??? Eh??
>
>Now if you follow tzip's advice and invest into a business venture where you
>can control your income to some extent there may be oportunities to keep
>your income below those thresholds and draw full benifits of the socialist
>programs. Catch is you need to have guts enough to get into a successful
>business with all it's responsibilites and challenges.
>
>Most working slobs like ourselves are screwing ourselves. Or more correctly,
>the gov't is.
>
>Go for it. Go into business.
>
>
>
The GIS is only for Low Income seniors anyway, the OAS is clawed back
starting at an annual retirement income of just over $53,000 / year.
"Risk losing the OAS"? Sure, have you done the math to see how much money
you'll need to pay yourself $53,000 / year for 20 or 30 years out of a LIF
/ RIF?
I have, the amount in your RRSP has to be $1,550,000 based on current
returns.
Here, do it your self:
http://www.rbcroyalbank.com/RBC:QumHW471A8YAAQ7efcM/cgi-
bin/retirement/c_incpay.pl
> Canada hasn't borrowed from the bond market to finance expenditures since
> before 1994. Canada has been in a surplus situation since then. You're
> living in the wrong decade. Go back to the 1980's where you belong! :)
Canada constantly is borrowing from the bond markets to finance
expenditures. Bonds become due and new ones are issued. Obviously you have
no concept of the operations of the Department of Finance, or the Bank of
Canada.
> They do not take a significant amount, it's usually at the lowest tax rate
> because the income of the recipient is much lower because they're not
> working. Far lower than the time it was put into the RRSP account and it
> also grows tax free.
Thats the 'theory' of it, but the reality of it is that the incremental tax
rates are over 50%, due to the GIS and OAS reductions, not to mention
ordinary income tax, and reduction of other benefits such as GST rebates.
>>What a pity that socialists who are unable to understand simple concepts
>>of
>>taxation rallied against such a plan in the last election, when in fact,
>>it
>>would be the most beneficial to low income earners who just want to put
>>away
>>a few bucks for a better standard of living in retirement.
>>
> Socialists? You're the one who thinks that the government should give
> everyone the GIS on top of their retirement earnings!
No, I believe that every Canadian, especially those at lower income levels,
should be able to save for retirement without having their retirement
incomes taxed at rates greater than 50%.
> You're out of it. I'm afraid that the assumptions that you've made are
> way
> off base and you really don't have a clue.
Do you have anything aside from insults to rebutt my assertions? Or are you
just going to call me an idiot and flip me the bird?
> I'm tired of teaching you how things work, fill the holes in your argument
> before you attempt a response next time. I'm not bothering with this
> nonsense any more.
Ever heard the saying, 'a penny saved, a penny earned'? If you understood
the Canadian tax system for seniors, you would understand that the statement
is more appropriately, "a penny saved, two pennies earned', since at least
half their income goes to tax anyways.
> I have, the amount in your RRSP has to be $1,550,000 based on current
> returns.
Weird, doing the same math, I get an income of $97,577/annum based on a real
return rate of 5%.
Even if you cut the real rate of return down to 4%, that is still
$86,745/annum. Indexxed to inflation, of course.
If you use the Government of Canada's RRIF tables, one is 'forced' an income
of 7.38% of that amount at the age of 71. 7.38% of 1.55M is $114,390.
http://www.taxtips.ca/RRSPs.htm#RRIFMinimum
So your assertion that $1,550,000 of retirement savings at the age of 65 is
completely incorrect. Also you have conveniently forgotten that CPP is also
included in income for the purposes of calculating the OAS clawback.
ztip guy <dont.spam.me@no-spam> wrote in message:
news:<11ej20nsn3f7509@no-spam>
>No, I believe that every Canadian, especially those at lower income levels,
>should be able to save for retirement without having their retirement
>incomes taxed at rates greater than 50%.
>
>
That imaginary 50% again. Why not take it to Ralph Klein or Steve Harper and
see what they would do? Else, tell the Libertarians that their's an Ayn Rand
book sale on down at the local flea market.
Have a good one, I've no patience today for idealogues who lack a grasp of
reality.
*plonk*
"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@no-spam> wrote in message
news:alangbaker-BF3485.14222228072005@no-spam
> In article <omcie1pi726e8r3f4matehs2qqgtvqop01@no-spam>,
> JohnCarrick <NOSPAM@no-spam> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 02:26:37 GMT, nobody in particular <none@no-spam>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >So basically, if 6 people out of 10 decide to tax the 4 richest to
>> >subsistence levels, that's alright, huh? After all, it's democratic!
>>
>> That's quite obviously a straw man.
>>
>> No such thing has happened.
>>
>> Nothing even vaguely like that has happened.
>>
>> Nothing even remotely like that will ever happen.
>>
>> Find someone else who is willing to play such silly games with you.
>
> It's completely on point, John.
>
> The fact that it happens with millions of people rather than 10 doesn't
> change the basic nature of what is happening. The injustice of it is
> just hidden by the large number of people, it hasn't gone away.
Yes John, we care about you and hate to see you miss an opportunity for
learning.
"B. Taylor" <taylorbri@no-spam> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d533176d3806f7c98b70f@no-spam
> Jethro <jgordonstevens@no-spam> wrote in message:
> news:<1122587383.001082.123200@no-spam>
>>I think there should be a flat tax for all individual wage earners.
>>There should be some tax incentive for those who operate business and
>>employ others.
>>
>>
> Flat taxes penalize the low and middle wage earners, that's why nobody has
> them. Wealthier people have better opportunities due to their wealth to
> defer taxes or avoid them completely. A simple example is the RRSP system
> in
> Canada which few make the full (tax deductible) contribution every year
> but
> those in the upper income brackets.
Alberta has a flat tax of 10%
And the best economy in the country.
A coincidence?
probably
p
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 15:35:10 -0400
JohnCarrick <NOSPAM@no-spam> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 02:26:37 GMT, nobody in particular <none@no-spam>
> wrote:
>=20
> >So basically, if 6 people out of 10 decide to tax the 4 richest to=20
> >subsistence levels, that's alright, huh? After all, it's democratic!
>=20
> That's quite obviously a straw man.
>=20
> No such thing has happened.
>=20
> Nothing even vaguely like that has happened.
>=20
> Nothing even remotely like that will ever happen.
> Find someone else who is willing to play such silly games with you.
>
It's not what's fair, it's what's functional, that counts. =20
So it's the rich who don't make any money you need to tax.
Dhu
--=20
???????????????????????????????????????
Can't get good help? =20
Contact Fubar the Hack: fubar AT neotext.ca
Area code seven eight zero, Exchange four six six, Local zero one zero nine
Highland terms, Canadian workmanship.
All persons named herein are purely fictional victims
of the Canidian Bagle Breeder's Association.
Save the Bagle!=20
Sun =D0hu
???????????????????????????????????????
pcourterelle <someone@no-spam> wrote
>
>"B. Taylor" <taylorbri@no-spam> wrote in message
>> Flat taxes penalize the low and middle wage earners, that's why nobody has
>> them. Wealthier people have better opportunities due to their wealth to
>> defer taxes or avoid them completely. A simple example is the RRSP system
>> in
>> Canada which few make the full (tax deductible) contribution every year
>> but
>> those in the upper income brackets.
>
>
>Alberta has a flat tax of 10%
>
>And the best economy in the country.
>
>A coincidence?
>
>probably
>
>p
>
>
>
Alberta's flat tax makes it the highest provincial tax for most people who
pay it, ask an accountant if you have doubts. And only a total idiot would
draw a connection between their flat income tax and the energy sector driven
prosperity that Alberta has (why don't you just blame it on religion and call
it a reward from God? It's just as likely). What kind of a moron are you?
You take the cake for idiots. It would be fascinating to find out where you
twits come up with your pretzel logic.
"B. Taylor" <taylorbri@no-spam> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d5351b454c7f3b098b726@no-spam
> labatyd <mail@no-spam> wrote in message:
> news:<11eitgan3ibbs66@no-spam>
>>
>>"B. Taylor" <taylorbri@no-spam> wrote in message
>>news:MPG.1d533bed3b161eea98b717@no-spam
>>> ztip guy <dont.spam.me@no-spam> wrote in message:
>>> news:<11eirnbc5bac661@no-spam>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Flat taxes penalize the low and middle wage earners, that's why nobody
>>>>> has
>>>>> them. Wealthier people have better opportunities due to their wealth
>>>>> to
>>>>> defer taxes or avoid them completely. A simple example is the RRSP
>>>>> system
>>>>> in
>>>>> Canada which few make the full (tax deductible) contribution every
>>>>> year
>>>>> but
>>>>> those in the upper income brackets.
>>>>
>>>>RRSP's actually cause the government to take in extra revenue, as
>>>>opposed
>>>>to
>>>>reduced revenue for the upper income bracket people. Governments are
>>>>able
>>>>to borrow at rock-bottom rates, 'invest' the money into RRSP's that
>>>>generate
>>>>higher returns (by 'investment',
>>>
>>> Not true, you're thinking of government bonds, not RRSP's which are
>>> usually
>>> put into mutual funds, not government bonds.
>>>>
>>>>a) achieves a return on their investment by taxing everything that
>>>>comes
>>>>out of the RRSP.
>>>
>>> At a considerable lower rate of income from the time they were invested,
>>> usually through an RIF.
>>>
>>>>b) doesn't have to pay out GIS and can sometimes reduce OAS benefits.
>>>
>>> Not necessarily because most people convert it to a RIF and draw on it
>>> at
>>> a
>>> lower level of income. Most times, people drawing on RIF's are within
>>> the
>>> eligibility level of a GIS. GIS's are income tested and generally
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>So, in essence, those who are making full RRSP contributions every year
>>>>are
>>>>paying even more tax than people who aren't making such contributions.
>>>
>>> No, your logic is flawed, see above.
>>>>
>>>>Plus RRSP's, unlike ownership interests in small businesses, are much
>>>>harder
>>>>to evade tax on. Every dollar pulled out of a RRSP is taxed as income.
>>>
>>> At a substantially lower rate than when they were invested.
>>>
>>>>The government loves that aspect as well and makes more money because
>>>>they
>>>>have greater control.
>>>
>>>
>>> They are a tax break, your obvious ignorance of how RRSP's work shows
>>> that
>>> you need to understand how they work. Until then, your comments are not
>>> valid.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>That's a crock of shit. Those that have the RRSP's and withdraw them at
>>retirement risk loosing the GIS and and OAS benifits. If the income
>>reaches
>>a certai level they are taxed at some of the highest rates. One study I
>>read
>>several years ago and I admit I haven't run the numbers throough a
>>program,
>>places the marginal tax for those people at 70%. How's that for benefits
>>for
>>the rich??? Eh??
>>
>>Now if you follow tzip's advice and invest into a business venture where
>>you
>>can control your income to some extent there may be oportunities to keep
>>your income below those thresholds and draw full benifits of the socialist
>>programs. Catch is you need to have guts enough to get into a successful
>>business with all it's responsibilites and challenges.
>>
>>Most working slobs like ourselves are screwing ourselves. Or more
>>correctly,
>>the gov't is.
>>
>>Go for it. Go into business.
>>
>>
>>
> The GIS is only for Low Income seniors anyway, the OAS is clawed back
> starting at an annual retirement income of just over $53,000 / year.
>
> "Risk losing the OAS"? Sure, have you done the math to see how much
> money
> you'll need to pay yourself $53,000 / year for 20 or 30 years out of a
> LIF
> / RIF?
>
> I have, the amount in your RRSP has to be $1,550,000 based on current
> returns.
>
> Here, do it your self:
>
> http://www.rbcroyalbank.com/RBC:QumHW471A8YAAQ7efcM/cgi-
> bin/retirement/c_incpay.pl
ztip has pointed it out clearly to you. You haven't done your homework. Not
unusual. There's plenty of people in these newsgroups that don't know shit.
"B. Taylor" <taylorbri@no-spam> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d535447bcf1562398b729@no-spam
> ztip guy <dont.spam.me@no-spam> wrote in message:
> news:<11ej20nsn3f7509@no-spam>
>>No, I believe that every Canadian, especially those at lower income
>>levels,
>>should be able to save for retirement without having their retirement
>>incomes taxed at rates greater than 50%.
>>
>>
> That imaginary 50% again. Why not take it to Ralph Klein or Steve Harper
> and
> see what they would do? Else, tell the Libertarians that their's an Ayn
> Rand
> book sale on down at the local flea market.
>
> Have a good one, I've no patience today for idealogues who lack a grasp of
> reality.
>
> *plonk*
Good, STFU. Stop spreading bullshit. RRSP's a TRAP. At best they are an
icome leveling system which can have huge tax implications for some people
if icome threshholds are triggered in retirement. Worse than if they had
simply spent or invested the money during their working lives.
labatyd <mail@no-spam> wrote in message:
news:<11em33vaie1sf13@no-spam>
>
>"B. Taylor" <taylorbri@no-spam> wrote in message
>news:MPG.1d535447bcf1562398b729@no-spam
>> ztip guy <dont.spam.me@no-spam> wrote in message:
>> news:<11ej20nsn3f7509@no-spam>
>>>No, I believe that every Canadian, especially those at lower income
>>>levels,
>>>should be able to save for retirement without having their retirement
>>>incomes taxed at rates greater than 50%.
>>>
>>>
>> That imaginary 50% again. Why not take it to Ralph Klein or Steve Harper
>> and
>> see what they would do? Else, tell the Libertarians that their's an Ayn
>> Rand
>> book sale on down at the local flea market.
>>
>> Have a good one, I've no patience today for idealogues who lack a grasp of
>> reality.
>>
>> *plonk*
>
>Good, STFU. Stop spreading bullshit. RRSP's a TRAP. At best they are an
>icome leveling system which can have huge tax implications for some people
>if icome threshholds are triggered in retirement. Worse than if they had
>simply spent or invested the money during their working lives.
>
>
>
I was reading the thread, and I have a question;
Peter Pocklington ran as a Tory in 1980 under the idea, but it never floated?
Why not?
> Good, STFU. Stop spreading bullshit. RRSP's a TRAP. At best they are an
> icome leveling system which can have huge tax implications for some people
> if icome threshholds are triggered in retirement. Worse than if they had
> simply spent or invested the money during their working lives.
Exactly. And if you want to help the economy by leveraging your
investments, most banks are very pleased to lend you the money if you can
show them a viable business plan or strategy. In fact, pretty much every
bank/broker in the country will lend $2 for every $1 of quality retirement
investments you own, and the interest is tax deductable when you use that
money for retirement investing.
Make the power of leverage work for *you*, not for a corrupt and wasteful
Government of Canada. Trust me, you will be much further ahead in the long
run, with enough money left over to dispense charity yourself if you see
fit.
"Luna" <luna@no-spam> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d54da49abe6d1b298b75b@no-spam
> labatyd <mail@no-spam> wrote in message:
> news:<11em33vaie1sf13@no-spam>
>>
>>"B. Taylor" <taylorbri@no-spam> wrote in message
>>news:MPG.1d535447bcf1562398b729@no-spam
>>> ztip guy <dont.spam.me@no-spam> wrote in message:
>>> news:<11ej20nsn3f7509@no-spam>
>>>>No, I believe that every Canadian, especially those at lower income
>>>>levels,
>>>>should be able to save for retirement without having their retirement
>>>>incomes taxed at rates greater than 50%.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> That imaginary 50% again. Why not take it to Ralph Klein or Steve Harper
>>> and
>>> see what they would do? Else, tell the Libertarians that their's an Ayn
>>> Rand
>>> book sale on down at the local flea market.
>>>
>>> Have a good one, I've no patience today for idealogues who lack a grasp
>>> of
>>> reality.
>>>
>>> *plonk*
>>
>>Good, STFU. Stop spreading bullshit. RRSP's a TRAP. At best they are an
>>icome leveling system which can have huge tax implications for some people
>>if icome threshholds are triggered in retirement. Worse than if they had
>>simply spent or invested the money during their working lives.
>>
>>
>>
> I was reading the thread, and I have a question;
>
> Peter Pocklington ran as a Tory in 1980 under the idea, but it never
> floated?
>
> Why not?
Why have all these stupid programs in the first place? They help no one
except the gov't. The poor don't buy RRSP's, the rich don't either, they
have better things to do with their money. That leaves only the middle
income people who just don't get it. There are armies of people on both
sides of the issue, in gov't, Rev Canada for instance, and investment
dealers et al. Huge numbers of people that contribute NOTHING to the well
being of the nation. Not one loaf of bread, one 2x4, on inch of asphalt.
NOTHING.
For what? All sorts of people telling YOU how to manage YOUR money and your
life, even to the extent of knowing who is living with who. Freeloaders
living off the efforts of the few remaining people left producing.
And this is not the only issue. There are tons more. Then we wonder why we
can't compete against foreign nations like China and Tiawan?
Whatever happened to good old fashioned savings, mind your own damn business
and get on with life?
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 09:34:37 -0400
>>>>>No, I believe that every Canadian, especially those at lower income
>>>>>levels,
>>>>>should be able to save for retirement without having their retirement
>>>>>incomes taxed at rates greater than 50%.
>>>>>
Well we can have lower tax rates and spend the savings on health
insurance. That sounds good.
"labatyd" <mail@no-spam> wrote in message
news:11em33vaie1sf13@no-spam
>
> "B. Taylor" <taylorbri@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1d535447bcf1562398b729@no-spam
>> ztip guy <dont.spam.me@no-spam> wrote in message:
>> news:<11ej20nsn3f7509@no-spam>
>>>No, I believe that every Canadian, especially those at lower income
>>>levels,
>>>should be able to save for retirement without having their retirement
>>>incomes taxed at rates greater than 50%.
>>>
>>>
>> That imaginary 50% again. Why not take it to Ralph Klein or Steve Harper
>> and
>> see what they would do? Else, tell the Libertarians that their's an Ayn
>> Rand
>> book sale on down at the local flea market.
>>
>> Have a good one, I've no patience today for idealogues who lack a grasp
>> of
>> reality.
>>
>> *plonk*
>
> Good, STFU. Stop spreading bullshit. RRSP's a TRAP. At best they are an
> icome leveling system which can have huge tax implications for some people
> if icome threshholds are triggered in retirement. Worse than if they had
> simply spent or invested the money during their working lives.
LOL A trap? A chance to put some of your own money away, tax free? In
later years, if you find yourself on a reduced income, withdrawing some of
that money could help you out. You are only taxed on it in proportion to
the level of income it helps you attain.
labatyd: RRSPs good. You bad.
RRSPs if used appropriately, can provide funds for later conversion to
income funds with adequate protection from income tax.
I know one person that I gave advise to about RRSPs some forty years
ago. He is now a millionaire. If you follow the rules, they will work
for you.
sunshine
======
"labatyd" <mail@no-spam> wrote in message
news:11emve5dm7q093b@no-spam
|
| "Luna" <luna@no-spam> wrote in message
| news:MPG.1d54da49abe6d1b298b75b@no-spam
| > labatyd <mail@no-spam> wrote in message:
| > news:<11em33vaie1sf13@no-spam>
| >>
| >>"B. Taylor" <taylorbri@no-spam> wrote in message
| >>news:MPG.1d535447bcf1562398b729@no-spam
| >>> ztip guy <dont.spam.me@no-spam> wrote in message:
| >>> news:<11ej20nsn3f7509@no-spam>
| >>>>No, I believe that every Canadian, especially those at lower
income
| >>>>levels,
| >>>>should be able to save for retirement without having their
retirement
| >>>>incomes taxed at rates greater than 50%.
| >>>>
| >>>>
| >>> That imaginary 50% again. Why not take it to Ralph Klein or Steve
Harper
| >>> and
| >>> see what they would do? Else, tell the Libertarians that their's
an Ayn
| >>> Rand
| >>> book sale on down at the local flea market.
| >>>
| >>> Have a good one, I've no patience today for idealogues who lack a
grasp
| >>> of
| >>> reality.
| >>>
| >>> *plonk*
| >>
| >>Good, STFU. Stop spreading bullshit. RRSP's a TRAP. At best they are
an
| >>icome leveling system which can have huge tax implications for some
people
| >>if icome threshholds are triggered in retirement. Worse than if they
had
| >>simply spent or invested the money during their working lives.
| >>
| >>
| >>
| > I was reading the thread, and I have a question;
| >
| > Peter Pocklington ran as a Tory in 1980 under the idea, but it never
| > floated?
| >
| > Why not?
|
| Why have all these stupid programs in the first place? They help no
one
| except the gov't. The poor don't buy RRSP's, the rich don't either,
they
| have better things to do with their money. That leaves only the middle
| income people who just don't get it. There are armies of people on
both
| sides of the issue, in gov't, Rev Canada for instance, and investment
| dealers et al. Huge numbers of people that contribute NOTHING to the
well
| being of the nation. Not one loaf of bread, one 2x4, on inch of
asphalt.
| NOTHING.
|
| For what? All sorts of people telling YOU how to manage YOUR money and
your
| life, even to the extent of knowing who is living with who.
Freeloaders
| living off the efforts of the few remaining people left producing.
|
| And this is not the only issue. There are tons more. Then we wonder
why we
| can't compete against foreign nations like China and Tiawan?
|
| Whatever happened to good old fashioned savings, mind your own damn
business
| and get on with life?
|
|
> LOL A trap? A chance to put some of your own money away, tax free? In
Tax-free? Hardly. Only on a 'deferred tax' basis, and as the example given
with OAS and GIS added in, the taxes are likely to actually be greater when
you go to withdraw the money than they were when you started contributing.
Basically RRSP's are a form of leverage. Would you prefer to leverage the
Government of Canada's money, or your own?
> later years, if you find yourself on a reduced income, withdrawing some of
> that money could help you out. You are only taxed on it in proportion to
> the level of income it helps you attain.
But the problem is, if you use RRSP's to attain a low level of income, then
your GIS is removed from you in fairly significant proportions. If you use
RRSP's to attain a high level of income, then you lose OAS plus you pay high
levels of income tax on the withdrawals. Either way, pretty much, there is
no good way for the common person to win using RRSP's, given the plethora of
benefits in Canada that are income-tested.
As I pointed out in an earlier message, if you want a better system that the
wealthy use, you really should be doing your own borrowing to invest, in
other words, make the power of leverage work for you, not for the
government.
> income people who just don't get it. There are armies of people on both
> sides of the issue, in gov't, Rev Canada for instance, and investment
> dealers et al. Huge numbers of people that contribute NOTHING to the well
> being of the nation. Not one loaf of bread, one 2x4, on inch of asphalt.
> NOTHING.
Exactly and Revenue Canada actively promotes RRSP's, even going so far as to
print your deduction and contribution limits on every tax assessment they
send you.
The real irony of RRSP's is that there are contribution and deduction limits
at all. The government would see a far greater benefit, for instance, if
they removed that 18% contribution limit or raised it significantly.
However, they keep that limit in place to maintain the 'allure' of RRSP's,
to somehow imply that RRSP's are some magic 'priviledge' granted by the
government, all rights reserved.
> For what? All sorts of people telling YOU how to manage YOUR money and
> your life, even to the extent of knowing who is living with who.
> Freeloaders living off the efforts of the few remaining people left
> producing.
Yes indeed, all the administration associated with RRSP's, all the
advertising, all the hoopla and hype, adds nothing to the wealth of the
country.