[darwink]

On man... I agree with Jeff Bezos, I'm taking the rest of the day off and making an appointment with my doctor.

Jeff Bezos says bottom half of earners should pay zero in income taxes

Amazon Executive Chairman Jeff Bezos on Wednesday called for zero federal income taxes on the bottom half of earners.

www.cnbc.com

The bottom half of earners being even less engaged in politics is bad though. Then you have issues of funding the state with whats left, with steeper progression in brackets.

 

[darwink]

Keyera, AltaGas and CN to go ahead with new rail terminal project

CALGARY — Keyera Corp., AltaGas Ltd. and Canadian National Railway Co. have announced a plan to go ahead with a new $240-million rail terminal project.

ca.finance.yahoo.com

LPG exports has been the sleeper story of the last decade. Great to see!

 

[CalgaryTiger]

The bottom half of earners being even less engaged in politics is bad though. Then you have issues of funding the state with whats left, with steeper progression in brackets.

Sorry you might've missed my add-on that here we could replace it with an non-essential GST increase or PST implementation.

I also am not sure low income earners have their level of interest in politics because they pay incomes taxes. They would still pay GST or a theoretical PST.

 

[O-tac]

Will Bezos agree to pay higher taxes himself? Or drop the ridiculous municipal subsidies for Amazon?

 

[FriendlyDrunks]

On man... I agree with Jeff Bezos, I'm taking the rest of the day off and making an appointment with my doctor.

Jeff Bezos says bottom half of earners should pay zero in income taxes

Amazon Executive Chairman Jeff Bezos on Wednesday called for zero federal income taxes on the bottom half of earners.

www.cnbc.com

In all seriousness, how much would we have to increase the GST or implement a PST in Alberta on non-essential items to offset the elimination of income take for the bottom bracket?

Essential items being food and utilities.

Did he say how much he should be taxed?

 

[trtcttc]

Sorry you might've missed my add-on that here we could replace it with an non-essential GST increase or PST implementation.

I also am not sure low income earners have their level of interest in politics because they pay incomes taxes. They would still pay GST or a theoretical PST.

In the US, the bottom 50% pay only 3% of all tax collected. In Canada it's a bit higher (lower income disparity, lower top end incomes, higher tax rates), that the bottom 40% pay about 8.8% of all tax collected, which is a pretty significant budget hole if it was to vanish. A GST/PST increase would actually be worse. The income tax system is progressive, a consumption tax is regressive. Lower income people spend a higher share (often 100% or more) on consumption, which is taxed with the GST/PST. Wealthier people invest and utilize tax sheltered instruments that a lot of their income (such as those in a TFSA) are not taxed, or is taxed later (assuming they must consume at some point). That time value of money is a huge advantage. The other option is to increase GST/PST, and match it with huge increase in the GST/HST tax credit, but that gets very complicated to keep revenue neutral.

A more straightforward way to tax the lower end less, is to tax the higher end more. It won't matter for the top 1%, they'll live where they want to live, and they can shelter their money, but is very uncompetitive for the 40% to 80% income levels. For context, this is a family income of $112k to $261k, which might be well off, but is far from wealthy. If we significantly increase taxes, people will relocate, particularly to the US. I also think it's important to think about income taxes not just from the point of revenue, but also expenses. Lower income individuals consume a larger share of tax collected (use of social programs, services, etc.). I think having those that consume the most services, pay $0 into the system is bad for social cohesion and support for these social programs.

 

[CalgaryTiger]

Great points, it makes me think of the arguments to reduce the welfare systems (probably a more American term to use) and let people keep more money and help themselves. I think our system of higher taxes and more programs and services is better but that just might be my general distrust in people to do the best thing with their money for our society as a whole. I'm not just distrusting low-income people either. Low-income people might just splurge more if they take more home (granted I think studies suggest this doesn't happen) meanwhile high-income people use every avenue available to pay as little tax as possible (this happens now).

 

[trtcttc]

Great points, it makes me think of the arguments to reduce the welfare systems (probably a more American term to use) and let people keep more money and help themselves. I think our system of higher taxes and more programs and services is better but that just might be my general distrust in people to do the best thing with their money for our society as a whole. I'm not just distrusting low-income people either. Low-income people might just splurge more if they take more home (granted I think studies suggest this doesn't happen) meanwhile high-income people use every avenue available to pay as little tax as possible (this happens now).

The biggest spend of our combined federal and provincial taxes deliver healthcare and retirement benefits, then social programs. For Alberta, transfer payments is a big one but that's mostly to deliver healthcare, retirement benefits and social programs to other Canadians. Just giving people money, I don't think would fund these things to the degree necessary. Not blaming the individual, but expecting a lower income person to purchase personal health insurance and save for retirement is pretty unrealistic. Even for higher income individuals, we have RRSP and other tools to force that savings. The social program piece I think the benefits is often overstated if it exists at all. As a very basic example, if we cut food supports and give the people that use that support, the same amount of money to buy food. Would the be able to get more/better food per dollar themselves vs the foodbank? Which rely a lot on free donated food and volunteers? The service has to be provided by someone, so while social organizations sometimes have scandals or misused funds, giving people money is essentially saying the private market is more efficient at delivering these services and I just don't think so.