News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.1K     0 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Property tax isn't an income tax, it's a tax on property for which a range of services are provided.
Click to expand...

Well, it really is more like an income tax of sorts, as it is not based on consumption of city services, but the assessed market value of the property, and the usage of that property. But it still isn't evil.
 
Before we even engage in the debate over the desirability of various forms of taxes, we should clarify that the use of the term "evil" is truly inappropriate in this context; genocide is evil, torture is evil, murder is evil...but taxes...really? To surrender the use of this powerful term to the whims of Doug Ford's elk is basically agreeing with the gist of his message.

AoD
 
I don't think it's a coincidence that the places with the highest levels of taxation also have the highest quality of life. And you only need to look 100kms to the south to see what happens to a society that is obsessed with the lowest taxation levels possible. Providing your share of taxes that allow for others less fortunate to have an improved quality of life actually improves your own quality of life and I think it's rather narrow-minded to not realize that.
 
Also, not sure if anyone else heard but Ford has postponed his weigh-in to "a later date". Did anyone have April 10th in the pool for when that would end?
 
MTown said:
I personally think that income taxation (I, personally, include property taxation in this) is evil and anachronistically feudal BUT am all for raising consumption taxation especially on things that are currently subsidised (ie driving) or harmful (ie driving...ok, fine, cigarettes and plastic bags).
Click to expand...

Consumption taxes are inherently regressive. The lower your income, the higher the fraction of it that goes to consumption taxes. Wealthy people do not spend all their money buying taxable goods and services; they invest most of it in ways that avoid or reduce taxation. This is to be expected, somebody who makes 100 times minimum wage does not spend 100 times as much on food as a minimum wage earner, so the excess money can be invested in ways that reduce the taxes payable, compared to what consumption taxes would take.

If I had to get rid of one type of taxation, it would be consumption taxes, with the lost revenue being taken up by earnings taxes, including income, capital gains, and any other source of wealth increase, all taxed at the same marginal rates.
 
Last edited:
Mongo said:
Consumption taxes are inherently regressive. The lower your income, the higher the fraction of it that goes to consumption taxes. Wealthy people do not spend all their money buying taxable goods and services; they invest most of it in ways that avoid or reduce taxation. This is to be expected, somebody who makes 100 times minimum wage does not spend 100 times as much on food as a minimum wage earner, so the excess money can be invested in ways that reduce the taxes payable, compared to what consumption taxes would take.

If I had to get rid of one type of taxation, it would be consumption taxes, with the lost revenue being taken up by earnings taxes, including income, capital gains, and any other source of wealth increase, all taxed at the same marginal rates.
Click to expand...

This assumes that you're a applying a fixed percentage tax on everything. In this situation I agree that consumption taxes are very regressive. There's no reason to evenly apply consumption taxes though. Shelter those with less income by exempting the basic necessities from taxation. The more an item or service represents an unnecessary luxury the more it gets taxed. A consumption tax can be as progressive as you want it to be.
 
In this situation I agree that consumption taxes are very regressive. There's no reason to evenly apply consumption taxes though. Shelter those with less income by exempting the basic necessities from taxation.
Click to expand...

That already exists to some degree at the federal, provincial and municipal level....just not usually at the point of purchase. Whether it's enough, I don't know.
 
MTown said:
I personally think that income taxation is evil, but am all for raising consumption taxation especially on things that are currently subsidised (ie driving) or harmful (ie driving...ok, fine, cigarettes and plastic bags).
Click to expand...

If you're in favour of raising consumption taxation (which I'm in favour of too) then you can't be against the flip side of that coin which is user fees. If we tax people more specifically for what they consume rather then just a general tax on everyone (income tax) then we should charge people more specifically for what they use. Of course this is where people want to have their cake and eat it too. They're all for toll highways and higher vehicle registration fees, but not for charging people to use swimming pools or day cares.
 
hawc said:
If you're in favour of raising consumption taxation (which I'm in favour of too) then you can't be against the flip side of that coin which is user fees. If we tax people more specifically for what they consume rather then just a general tax on everyone (income tax) then we should charge people more specifically for what they use. Of course this is where people want to have their cake and eat it too. They're all for toll highways and higher vehicle registration fees, but not for charging people to use swimming pools or day cares.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think it's very easy to be for consumption taxes and against user fees at the same time. By choosing which goods to tax you can fairly easily gear your taxation to tax the wealthy more heavily. It would be more difficult I think to do this for user fees. Moreover, use of things like public swimming pools, libraries, etc. are likely more heavily frequented by those of lower income.
 
ttk77 said:
Actually, I think it's very easy to be for consumption taxes and against user fees at the same time. By choosing which goods to tax you can fairly easily gear your taxation to tax the wealthy more heavily. It would be more difficult I think to do this for user fees. Moreover, use of things like public swimming pools, libraries, etc. are likely more heavily frequented by those of lower income.
Click to expand...

My bad, I thought this was about making people pay for what they use. Not redistribution of wealth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top