The Official Election Thread

[sonnythebull]

Forum Sponsor

I disagree. Exxon, Shell, etc are not small businesses. Your bias makes you blind.

do you think these are small businesses?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_public_companies_in_Canada_by_profit

The vast majority of registered corporations in canada are small. Again, we know you hate money, success and corporations but please quote facts



The total number of registered employer businesses in Canada (businesses with at least one employee on payroll) as of December 2010, the most recent figure available: 1,138,761


1,116,423 of those were small businesses, comprising 98 per cent of all employers

 

[sonnythebull]

I may have been wrong on your income, (props to you) but I'm not making up the fact that large corporations avoid paying taxes by using tax shelters, which are not available to the working class.

these shelters/loopholes exist because politicians writing the rules are bought by lobbyists and campaign contributions.

such as? Please show them to me so I can use them because all my connections,business ,legal and accounting are clearly keeping them from me. I will put you on payroll as a consultant if you can show me the legal way to do this without triggering an audit ,fines ,back taxes and or potential criminal charges. Please show me. Facts not your dreams

 

[Schneller]

The vast majority of registered corporations in canada are small. Again, we know you hate money, success and corporations but please quote facts



The total number of registered employer businesses in Canada (businesses with at least one employee on payroll) as of December 2010, the most recent figure available: 1,138,761


1,116,423 of those were small businesses, comprising 98 per cent of all employers

Right. And it's these small businesses that the NDP want to support, not the huge corporations listed in my previous post, many of whom receive government subsidies as well.

sonny, why the personal jabs? Let's just debate. It's you that's getting emotional. Don't put words in my mouth.

 

[sonnythebull]

Right. And it's these small businesses that the NDP want to support, not the huge corporations listed in my previous post, many of whom receive government subsidies as well.

sonny, why the personal jabs? Let's just debate. It's you that's getting emotional.

because you aren't debating you are talking BS and are a liar who makes up things . You quote facts and I would talk decently but telling me I'm not rich enough and that " some silver investor" laughed about paying taxes is a joke and will make you be treated like a joke. Do your research and don't throw out your "ideas "because as we see they are factually wrong.
im not emotional I'm passionate about defending against this BS that you and other "experts "keep bleating about

 

[Schneller]

because you aren't debating you are talking BS and are a liar who makes up things . You quote facts and I would talk decently but telling me I'm not rich enough and that " some silver investor" laughed about paying taxes is a joke and will make you be treated like a joke. Do your research and don't throw out your "ideas "because as we see they are factually wrong.
im not emotional I'm passionate about defending against this BS that you and other "experts "keep bleating about

So what am I lying about? I did I hurt your feelings by guessing that you weren't in the top 1%? Gee, sorry about that. I'm not claiming to be an expert. I'm just also passionate, about politics and all I'm expressing is my opinion, as is everyone else.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/04/news/economy/buffett-secretary-taxes/

 

[nakkers]

They most certainly dont represent me! Im insulted by that idea.

They represent the Unions whos pockets they are in. Nothing more, nothing else. Please dont equate Unions with blue collar workers.

The NDP has been demonizing big business as the cornerstone of their party. Like it or not, they rep more then just unions. There are blue collar workers that aline themselves with NDP policy all the time. How about those folks looking for a higher minimum wage for example? Right up NDPs ally. They aren't unionized. And they sure as heck don't support big business. But they sure support getting paid more without considering the increased cost that gets passed along to them and everyone else for that increase?

I'm not an NDP supporter. But one thing I can't argue about them is, they are clear on where they stand. They just don't give a clear way of how they will make it happen.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sonnythebull]

So what am I lying about? I did I hurt your feelings by guessing that you weren't in the top 1%? Gee, sorry about that. I'm not claiming to be an expert. I'm just also passionate, about politics.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/04/news/economy/buffett-secretary-taxes/

You lie by telling stories that aren't true, that's called lying.
we already addressed this. He didn't laugh about paying no tax . His claim is BS because he takes dividends instead of salary which no one forces him to do. If he felt it was wrong he could take salary and pay a higher percentage than her. It's PR BS.
And the dividends are paid out of the corporation in after tax dollars. So essentially he's paying tax on already taxed money. How do I know? I do the same. however I also take salary fully taxed. so to sum up so you get it. The company pays tax on profit, then if warranted or needed it pays dividends to shareholders that are then taxed. This is available to any shareholder including you if you buy stock that pays dividends. It is fully taxed once the corporation pays tax and then the individual pays tax on the dividend.

 

[Schneller]

You lie by telling stories that aren't true, that's called lying.
we already addressed this. He didn't laugh about paying no tax . His claim is BS because he takes dividends instead of salary which no one forces him to do. If he felt it was wrong he could take salary and pay a higher percentage than her. It's PR BS.
And the dividends are paid out of the corporation in after tax dollars. So essentially he's paying tax on already taxed money. How do I know? I do the same. however I also take salary fully taxed. so to sum up so you get it. The company pays tax on profit, then if warranted or needed it pays dividends to shareholders that are then taxed. This is available to any shareholder including you if you buy stock that pays dividends. It is fully taxed once the corporation pays tax and then the individual pays tax on the dividend.

How does that change the big picture? No, he didn't laugh about paying no tax. But he pointed out that certain tax rules benefit the rich who make money with money - capital gains, which is taxed at a lower rate than salaried earnings. Not so different to rudely call someone a liar.

 

[sonnythebull]

How does that change the big picture? No, he didn't laugh about paying no tax. But he pointed out that certain tax rules benefit the rich who make money with money - capital gains, which is taxed at a lower rate than salaried earnings. Not so different to rudely call someone a liar.

Gonna explain it again. It's not capital gains ( although you and anyone in canada have a lifetime capital gains exemption of 750,000) did you know that? Do you hate your tax cheating self now? It's DIVIDENDS which are paid out to shareholders from AFTER TAX profit . The shareholder then pays TAX . So the company paid tax and then the shareholder pays tax again.
warren Buffett chooses dividends, which again are taxed ( yes at a lower rate but it doesn't mean anything because the company already paid tax on them too before distributing to him which brings the total rate back up to more than his secretary's rate) if he chose salary he would be taxed at the same full rate ( corp tax plus dividend tax) which would be a higher rate than his secretary.
read the article, learn the tax code in the U.S. And Canada or accept that people,like me know more than you and you are wrong.

 

[Brian P]

I may have been wrong on your income, (props to you) but I'm not making up the fact that large corporations avoid paying taxes by using tax shelters, which are not available to the working class.

these shelters/loopholes exist because politicians writing the rules are bought by lobbyists and campaign contributions.

I don't think you know what a "tax shelter" is - or how Revenue Canada goes after the dodgy ones.

There are tax avoidance/delay/minimization strategies that are available to every Canadian individual taxpayer ... RRSP/RRIF (depending on your age) and TFSA. These are not available to corporations.

When a corporation has a profit it's better for the corporation to either (1) spend it on developing the business further (which reduces the profit) or (2) distribute it to shareholders as a dividend (which transfers tax to the investors but at a reduced rate because the company has already paid tax on it). Those dividends will eventually - hopefully - be funding my retirement.

Bear in mind that if the NDP's promise to tax the heck out of corporations actually comes to fruition, it will either be on the backs of small businesses like the one that pays my bills, or on the backs of multinational companies who have the option of going elsewhere. We have had quite enough of businesses taking manufacturing out of Ontario and moving it elsewhere (be it southern US, or Mexico, or China, or wherever). It's already tough enough to do business in Ontario. We don't need to be making it tougher. One of the problems that I have with the NDP is that they seemingly fail to recognize that Canada does not operate in a vacuum. We need to be making it more attractive to do business in Canada, not harder.

 

[sonnythebull]

I don't think you know what a "tax shelter" is - or how Revenue Canada goes after the dodgy ones.

There are tax avoidance/delay/minimization strategies that are available to every Canadian individual taxpayer ... RRSP/RRIF (depending on your age) and TFSA. These are not available to corporations.

When a corporation has a profit it's better for the corporation to either (1) spend it on developing the business further (which reduces the profit) or (2) distribute it to shareholders as a dividend (which transfers tax to the investors but at a reduced rate because the company has already paid tax on it). Those dividends will eventually - hopefully - be funding my retirement.

Bear in mind that if the NDP's promise to tax the heck out of corporations actually comes to fruition, it will either be on the backs of small businesses like the one that pays my bills, or on the backs of multinational companies who have the option of going elsewhere. We have had quite enough of businesses taking manufacturing out of Ontario and moving it elsewhere (be it southern US, or Mexico, or China, or wherever). It's already tough enough to do business in Ontario. We don't need to be making it tougher. One of the problems that I have with the NDP is that they seemingly fail to recognize that Canada does not operate in a vacuum. We need to be making it more attractive to do business in Canada, not harder.

smart post thank you

 

[Brian P]

How does that change the big picture? No, he didn't laugh about paying no tax. But he pointed out that certain tax rules benefit the rich who make money with money - capital gains, which is taxed at a lower rate than salaried earnings. Not so different to rudely call someone a liar.

sonny's posting while I'm posting and it sounds like we're on the same page.

Capital gains is indeed taxed at a lower rate than income - but if a corporation turns a profit as a result of its operations and opts to distribute it or some portion of it to shareholders, that will be as a dividend. It's taxed at a lower rate because there has already been tax paid on that income.

Again, bear in mind that if a government creates an environment that disadvantages investors, the result will be ... less investment. That is not what our economy needs.

 

[Brian P]

I'm not claiming to be an expert

Perhaps, but it would be worthwhile for you to investigate subjects a bit further before making statements that are inaccurate or out of context.

I wish all the g_dd__n politicians would do the same ...

 

[cbcanada]

How Canadian corps are paying less taxes. This is just scratching the surface.

http://www.canadianbusiness.com/blo...n-companies-paying-almost-no-tax-duncan-hood/




"If i was educated, I'd be a damn fool"

 

[jc100]

I think what Schneller may be getting at is what Starbucks had been doing over in the UK before a public outcry forced them to do otherwise. Their tax avoidance strategy was legal, but not exactly moral. That kind of avoidance isn't available to the average joe on the street and not even many small business owners unless they have international franchises. They only semi-righted the wrong when they were outed, and then only because of bad publicity.

 

[Brian P]

Right. And it's these small businesses that the NDP want to support, not the huge corporations listed in my previous post, many of whom receive government subsidies as well.

Okay. Here is a situation for you to explain what you would do - both from a company's point of view, and from a government's point of view.

An auto manufacturer has an existing assembly plant in Ontario. But it is manufacturing a product that has been around for a few years and the time is coming to re-tool the plant, which is an enormous job and if it happens, will keep people employed at that plant and at countless suppliers to that plant for years to come.

From the company's point of view first.
Option 1, close the plant and transfer the next-generation product to Mexico. Same manufacturer already has a plant there. Whether you re-tool here, or re-tool there, makes no real difference in terms of schedule, product quality, capital cost, etc except the labour cost will be a lot less there for years to come.
Option 2, close the plant and transfer the next-generation product to Michigan, which you might have noticed has been having a bit of difficulty lately. Same manufacturer already has a plant there, too. Michigan offers significant tax breaks. But then you're dealing with the UAW.
Option 3, re-tool the plant in Ontario. What's the incentive for doing this ? ? ? Why should they do this instead of options 1 or 2? All legal compliance costs are higher. The US market is 10 times bigger so no advantage there. The only advantage right now, is the low Canadian dollar, and that's likely only temporary.

Government's point of view. Do you:
- Offer them a tax break in recognition of Ontario's higher costs of doing business?
- Or go the opposite direction - Revoke NAFTA? (The company would likely respond by taking ALL manufacturing out of Canada and moving it to the 10-times-bigger US market, and ensuring that ALL parts manufacturing was done in the US market. The vehicles would become more expensive to buy in Canada, and now with fewer jobs in Canada, Canadians would be incrementally less able to buy them. But from the company's point of view, it's worth sacrificing this market to hang onto the big one.)

 

[Schneller]

How Canadian corps are paying less taxes. This is just scratching the surface.

http://www.canadianbusiness.com/blo...n-companies-paying-almost-no-tax-duncan-hood/

"If i was educated, I'd be a damn fool"

Thank you!

(politics do make strange bedfellows )

 

[fastar1]

sonny's posting while I'm posting and it sounds like we're on the same page.

Capital gains is indeed taxed at a lower rate than income - but if a corporation turns a profit as a result of its operations and opts to distribute it or some portion of it to shareholders, that will be as a dividend. It's taxed at a lower rate because there has already been tax paid on that income.

Again, bear in mind that if a government creates an environment that disadvantages investors, the result will be ... less investment. That is not what our economy needs.

I've been staying out of this thread because the discussion has been pretty good at times, from most people. I'm surprised to find that you're not one of them. Your whole political view seems to rest on the simple assertion that we need more business, not less, and that lower taxes provide this.

Of course, this is entirely true and 100% accurate, but it is also myopic. Because even if taxes were a paltry 0.000001% your observation would remain true, yet at the same time it would be impossible to imagine that taxes are too high at that rate! The question isn't whether we need more business, it's about how much business we can afford to lose to balance against the other things we need in society.

I'm surprised that as an engineer you don't appreciate the need for a balanced approach like this. It would be like removing weight from a component based solely on the argument that weight just adds cost and reduces performance, without factoring any other considerations into the equation. The reality is there are rarely any cars that are too heavy any more than there are societies that are over taxed. They should all be assessed based on the goals and values sought by each one. The issue is what kind of society do we want to live in? Once we have that answer then the correct amount of taxation will be found.

Ultimately, I find the exact rate of taxation is irrelevant in the end. The only thing that matters is waste. Because as long as there's minimal waste (there's always some), then the taxes are being put to good use.

 

[Brian P]

Whatever gave the impression that I don't have a "balanced" view of this?

Of course it makes sense for the corporate tax rate to be non-zero (I never suggested otherwise). Of course it doesn't make sense that the government created crazy schemes of rules with consequences (whether unintended or otherwise), that companies took advantage of (but given the opportunity, who wouldn't?) But the overall situation needs to be competitive with the outside world. If we create a situation where Canada is uncompetitive ... jobs leave. It is very close to being at that threshold. The low Canadian dollar right now is the only thing in our favour. There is no black-and-white line in the sand, though. I just don't want a government that is going to make the situation WORSE.

But Canada does not operate in a vacuum.

Do you want GM to keep the Oshawa plant going - along with the hundreds of suppliers in the area?
Do you want FCA to keep Bramalea going - along with the hundreds of suppliers in the area?
Both of those are currently in question. We just barely hung onto FCA retooling Windsor instead of sending it all to Mexico.

 

[cbcanada]

Thank you!

(politics do make strange bedfellows )

I doubt they will read it.


"If i was educated, I'd be a damn fool"

Forum Sponsor