| Author | Post |
|---|
TenaciousC
Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 8th, 2009 04:00 am |
|
http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2009/10/06/ei-premium-hikes.html
Turns out Harper is planning to raise taxes, he just doesn't have the parts to admit it. The irony of the whole situation is that the economist in this article suggests that the GST be raised by 1% to accomidate.
What does everyone think about a floating tax rate? Similar to lending rates, why not tax the nation prime plus whatever percent?
|
onwaranupwar
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 28th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2625 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 9th, 2009 12:42 am |
|
TenaciousC wrote: http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2009/10/06/ei-premium-hikes.html
Turns out Harper is planning to raise taxes, he just doesn't have the parts to admit it. The irony of the whole situation is that the economist in this article suggests that the GST be raised by 1% to accomidate.
What does everyone think about a floating tax rate? Similar to lending rates, why not tax the nation prime plus whatever percent?
It's a funny thing about these conservative anti tax allegedly fiscally responsible governments. Always thumping their chests about how the Libs and NDP would run the country into inconceivably large deficits and then tax us into submission. Strange that in the past 25 years or so only the Conservative government has actually done this--twice, I seem to recall.
Here in BC our provincial government has done more or less the same thing. Lying about the record debt they've racked up until after the last election, they are now telling us that they're instituting HST, a move that is sure to make an economy that is just getting back on its feet even more sluggish. What makes it worse is that time and time again, even as recently as the last election, the government assured us that they would not institute HST to get more money in government coffers.
Typical conservatives, a whole lot better at lying than handling money.
|
pseudoname
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 9th, 2009 10:56 am |
|
It's clear to me that neither of you are qualified to speak on this topic.
UI/EI Employee Premium Deduction History (% of Earnings):
Chretien
1993 - 3.00
1994 - 3.00
1995 - 3.00
1996 - 2.95
1997 - 2.90
1998 - 2.70
1999 - 2.55
2000 - 2.40
2001 - 2.25
2002 - 2.20
2003 - 2.10
Martin
2004 - 1.98
2005 - 1.95
Harper
2006 - 1.87 (Que - 1.53)
2007 - 1.80 (Que - 1.46)
2008 - 1.73 (Que - 1.39)
2009 - 1.73 (Que - 1.38)
2010 - 1.73 (Que - ? )
I want both of you (as well as anyone else who, if they were honest, would admit that they know diddly-squat about taxation, especially as it applies to Small Business) to read ALL of these links (in a [possibly futile] attempt to understand what they mean):
http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/Time+move+uniform+standard/1716271/story.html
http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/employment-insurance-canada-history-structure-and-issues
http://unambig.wordpress.com/2009/05/31/ignatieff-ei-and-raising-taxes/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/archives/new-arms-length-crown-corporation-to-administer-ei-surplus/article669921/
http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0341-e.htm
http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/employment/ei/reports/chief_1998.shtml
http://www.fin.gc.ca/consultresp/eiratesResp_3-eng.asp
Or not.
(If not, you're not serious about understanding the system which we all live under.)
Last edited on Fri Oct 9th, 2009 10:58 am by pseudoname
|
pseudoname
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 9th, 2009 10:56 am |
|
dp
Last edited on Fri Oct 9th, 2009 10:58 am by pseudoname
|
pseudoname
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 9th, 2009 10:57 am |
|
dp
Last edited on Fri Oct 9th, 2009 10:58 am by pseudoname
|
onwaranupwar
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 28th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2625 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 9th, 2009 03:49 pm |
|
pseudoname wrote: It's clear to me that neither of you are qualified to speak on this topic.
UI/EI Employee Premium Deduction History (% of Earnings):
Chretien
1993 - 3.00
1994 - 3.00
1995 - 3.00
1996 - 2.95
1997 - 2.90
1998 - 2.70
1999 - 2.55
2000 - 2.40
2001 - 2.25
2002 - 2.20
2003 - 2.10
Martin
2004 - 1.98
2005 - 1.95
Harper
2006 - 1.87 (Que - 1.53)
2007 - 1.80 (Que - 1.46)
2008 - 1.73 (Que - 1.39)
2009 - 1.73 (Que - 1.38)
2010 - 1.73 (Que - ? )
I want both of you (as well as anyone else who, if they were honest, would admit that they know diddly-squat about taxation, especially as it applies to Small Business) to read ALL of these links (in a [possibly futile] attempt to understand what they mean):
http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/Time+move+uniform+standard/1716271/story.html
http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/employment-insurance-canada-history-structure-and-issues
http://unambig.wordpress.com/2009/05/31/ignatieff-ei-and-raising-taxes/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/archives/new-arms-length-crown-corporation-to-administer-ei-surplus/article669921/
http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0341-e.htm
http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/employment/ei/reports/chief_1998.shtml
http://www.fin.gc.ca/consultresp/eiratesResp_3-eng.asp
Or not.
(If not, you're not serious about understanding the system which we all live under.)
Interesting but apparently you're having another of your hallucinations. I made no comment whatsoever on EI premiums and you have no way of knowing what I do or don't know about them.
Furthermore I said not a single word about taxation of small businesses.
Is this hallucination the result of early morning drinking? If so, I'd cut down if I were you because it's clearly impeding your comprehension of reality.
|
Great White
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 9th, 2009 10:15 pm |
|
Harper has siad he won't raise taxes, but there is a likely hood that EI premiums will increase.
While one can say it's a "premium" not a tax, the main assertion being made today is that by raising EI premiums he is raising taxes.
Thus the refernece to EI premiums
|
pseudoname
Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 28th, 2009 10:50 am |
|
Great White wrote: Harper has siad he won't raise taxes, but there is a likely hood that EI premiums will increase.
While one can say it's a "premium" not a tax, the main assertion being made today is that by raising EI premiums he is raising taxes.
Thus the refernece to EI premiums
Yeah, GW, I got that part. About 40 years ago.
As in, one way or another I've been in charge of the books for companies that long.
Nobody - not even you - can tell me that this isn't just a case of Teenacious wringing his lefty hands about something he is in the dark about, but also one of Onwar jumping on his bandwagon to do some partisan ranting even while he says he knows better.
|
Mazel Schlimazel
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 30th, 2009 08:05 pm |
|
| Overall, would you say Canadian tax rates for persons and businesses are closer to American, or Western European levels?
|
TenaciousC
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 30th, 2009 10:04 pm |
|
pseudoname wrote: Great White wrote: Harper has siad he won't raise taxes, but there is a likely hood that EI premiums will increase.
While one can say it's a "premium" not a tax, the main assertion being made today is that by raising EI premiums he is raising taxes.
Thus the refernece to EI premiums
Yeah, GW, I got that part. About 40 years ago.
As in, one way or another I've been in charge of the books for companies that long.
Nobody - not even you - can tell me that this isn't just a case of Teenacious wringing his lefty hands about something he is in the dark about, but also one of Onwar jumping on his bandwagon to do some partisan ranting even while he says he knows better.
Under your failed logic, this implies that the premiums aren't being raised as they have been consistantly going down. Does this mean that we should be happy paying 98 cents a litre when gas used to be 1.25? Do you write the books for Nortel?
For a party to complain while in opposition that we are overtaxed, brag how they are reducing taxes and then turn around and back door Canadians (especially business owners who create jobs for the middle class) with an increase in EI is shameful. I'm not a lefty, but only a righty like you and your complete lack of prudent fiscal management would make that assertion.
THIS IS WHY CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENTS KILL THE ECONOMY
When will Canadians wake up?
|
IDL
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 30th, 2009 10:04 pm |
|
I'm sure when you add up all of the taxes, we pay more than Americans do. I think income tax rates are fairly similair but goods and service taxes and fees and such i'm pretty sure are much more.
Last edited on Fri Oct 30th, 2009 10:05 pm by IDL
|
pseudoname
Member
|
Posted: Sun Nov 1st, 2009 11:34 am |
|
Mazel Schlimazel wrote: Overall, would you say Canadian tax rates for persons and businesses are closer to American, or Western European levels?
To a great extent, that depends on the locale. There are places in each of the three jurisdictions where overall taxes are higher than either of the other two countries.
One of the least discussed is the Corporate Capital Tax rate (not to be confused with Corporate Income Tax rates). Nothing is a faster job-killer than a high Capital Tax.
But these things can be looked up by anyone, and they should.
One of the biggest things that can make a huge difference in terms of Personal Income Taxes is something that people who live in the US can do which we can't.
Unless they have changed it recently, in the US an individual can deduct the cost of their mortgage interest from their taxable income.
Stop and think about what that would mean to the tax returns of people in Canada and Europe.
|
pseudoname
Member
|
Posted: Sun Nov 1st, 2009 11:34 am |
|
TenaciousC wrote: pseudoname wrote: Great White wrote: Harper has siad he won't raise taxes, but there is a likely hood that EI premiums will increase.
While one can say it's a "premium" not a tax, the main assertion being made today is that by raising EI premiums he is raising taxes.
Thus the refernece to EI premiums
Yeah, GW, I got that part. About 40 years ago.
As in, one way or another I've been in charge of the books for companies that long.
Nobody - not even you - can tell me that this isn't just a case of Teenacious wringing his lefty hands about something he is in the dark about, but also one of Onwar jumping on his bandwagon to do some partisan ranting even while he says he knows better.
Under your failed logic, this implies that the premiums aren't being raised as they have been consistantly going down. Does this mean that we should be happy paying 98 cents a litre when gas used to be 1.25? Do you write the books for Nortel?
For a party to complain while in opposition that we are overtaxed, brag how they are reducing taxes and then turn around and back door Canadians (especially business owners who create jobs for the middle class) with an increase in EI is shameful. I'm not a lefty, but only a righty like you and your complete lack of prudent fiscal management would make that assertion.
THIS IS WHY CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENTS KILL THE ECONOMY
When will Canadians wake up?
When they stop listening to morons like you.
|
pseudoname
Member
|
Posted: Sun Nov 1st, 2009 12:08 pm |
|
I really was hoping that people who see this scenario as a "feeling" that exists amongst a segment of the population that they will "feel" it as a tax hike would read the links I posted, which explain everything.
But no. I get jumped all over.
Fine. I will explain why I posted them.
EI is INSURANCE.
The original intent of the passage of the original legislation was the notion that employees and employers alike - the employers paying in more - would, with their premiums, ensure that people who lost their jobs through no fault of their own would be able to stay alive until their next job.
Decades ago, it was determined that if the "program" needed bailing out, the funds to do so could be taken from General Revenue.
Well, didn't THAT get twisted all around. I was irate for years about the increasing levels of "surplus" that the EI fund contained - having 45 billion in one account is an astronomical figure for Canada.
It indicated that more money than was necessary by far was being deducted off employee earnings at source for a very long time.
Where were you when Paul Martin hacked the Federal contribution to Healthcare in the provinces from its mandated 50% to 13%?
What happened to your province/locale?
***********************************
And in his desperation, Martin TOOK that 40-odd billion OUT of the fund that was originally intended to remain separate and act as only an insurance policy that employees and employers paid into to "smooth the waters of the unexpectedly unemployed."
He took over 40 billion dollars of working peoples' money and stuck it into a last-ditch attempt to appear to have eliminated the federal deficit.
Not towards the massive debt Trudeau stuck us with. No. Just the deficit.
***********************************
The point is that EI was NEVER supposed to be used to BE the income for people who happen to live in an area where what they do for a living only lasts two months, nor was it intended to pay people for not working when they choose to have a baby. Etc.
My point is that Harper, in February of last year, created, for the first time, an ACTUAL account for EI funds to be held in. In other words, Martin raped over 40 BILLION of OUR dollars to pass around from General Revenue, and Harper has actually created a separate account for working peoples' EI contributions to be dedicated ONLY to them.
And Harper's the jerk?
***********************************
And some people wonder why I'm perpetually irate.
It's one thing to tackle politicians on what you think their policies will produce.
It's another thing altogether to mindlessly bash.
And it's worse yet when people who mindlessly bash are themselves arrogant.
|
stevecanuck
Member
|
Posted: Sun Nov 1st, 2009 04:49 pm |
|
Great White wrote: Harper has siad he won't raise taxes, but there is a likely hood that EI premiums will increase.
While one can say it's a "premium" not a tax, the main assertion being made today is that by raising EI premiums he is raising taxes.
Thus the refernece to EI premiums
I'm semi-retired, and by that I mean I'm officially retired from the big nasty oil company where I worked for 29 years, but I also do some part-time consulting.
EI is deducted from my part-time pay cheque. The kicker is that I'm not eligible to ever collect EI again.
So to me, that's a tax - not insurance.
|
Mazel Schlimazel
Member
|
Posted: Sun Nov 1st, 2009 05:47 pm |
|
IDL wrote: I'm sure when you add up all of the taxes, we pay more than Americans do. I think income tax rates are fairly similair but goods and service taxes and fees and such i'm pretty sure are much more.
 Which is part of the reason why you guys so love to drive down to Seattle for shopping at Nordstrom, The Outlet, and JCPenny - products aren't as taxed, and it's generally cheaper because it's bought straight from China, instead of being resold by the US to Canada...
|
Current time is 11:19 am | |
|
