TENS - Taxed Enough Nova Scotians

What do you mean? TENS is a response to the fiscal crisis here in Nova Scotia.

Im indifferent about this, 2% won't matter a lot to me, however maybe some of you could get down off of your hobby horses and consider that this 2% at least here in Ontarion will also be applied to essentials such as home utility bills, that would seem to affect everyone and those who can least afford it more so.  Exceptions should have been made for essentials.

Income taxes should be progressive.

The share of personal income for the richest 5% of Canadians was stable from 1982 to 1992 - they took about 21% of Canada's total income pie.

But between 1992 and 2004, their share grew to 25.3% of the income pie.

That doesn't sound like much, but that's a 4.3% increase in the share of all income earned in Canada, in a statistic that usually doesn't change much.

And it turns out the higher the income scale you go, the more money the richest of Canadians made: More than 90% of the gain in income share among the richest 5% went to the richest 1% of Canadians. Half of that gain went to the richest 0.1%. And remarkably, 20% of the gain went to the richest of the rich, the millionaires sitting in the top 0.01% of Canada's income scale.

Now here's where the dots line up. The Statistics Canada study also looked at the effective tax rates paid by individual Canadians in each income group.

It found that the average effective tax rate declined by about one percentage point for 95% of Canadians between 1992 and 2004.

The average effective tax rate for the top 5% declined by about two percentage points.

But the effective tax rate for the richest of the rich dropped dramatically.

The top 0.01%, the millionaires sitting at the top of the heap, enjoyed an average effective tax rate drop of 11 percentage points.

What the Statistics Canada study tells us is that between 1992 and 2004, Canada's income tax system ceased to be progressive for the richest 5% of taxfilers.

And what about the rest of us? For almost a decade, our provincial and federal governments have been talking tax cuts, but those cuts went into the pockets of the richest of the rich. And that tax break only bolstered the unprecedented growth in the share of income going to Canada's richest.

Le T, how would you respond to the fiscal crisis in Nova Scotia? Continue to borrow? Would you continue to grow program spending at twice the rate of growth? We already pay more interest on debt that we do for Community Services (social benefits to the disadvantaged).

I wish the article would have told us exactly how this change occurred.  A drop in the top marginal tax rate?  And are they calculating effective tax rate based on taxable income?  Or are they using "economic income" instead?

Uhm, so taxes were just fine before the NDP was elected? Or you just discovered they're too high this past week? Bunch of losers on the margins ...

Of couse is a "partisan bickering match". That was the point. Or why is the "groups" founder calling himself "theatlanticaparty"? What, the plainly obvious is to be ignored?

Nova Scotia can't compete with other provinces? Which provinces are you competing with and for what? You're playing a non-sensical neo-liberal song so worn and tired and so full of sour notes. You want to blame the tax structure, the thing that pays for roads, hospitals, police, and services for the rewards of the neo-liberal system of which you still haven't had enough. Your statement of purpose ought to read, "Neo-Liberalism, having brought our economy to its knees, having rendered our local businesses bankrupt, having left our children bereft of opportunity, and having sold our natural resources without benefit to us, must be strengthened and imposed until the last breath of the last Nova Scotian with a penny to spend has been had."

Then you will have properly captured your madness and your message. Good luck.

NSMark wrote:

As for your socialist rant at the end, the last time I checked provinces like Alberta had roads, hospitals, etc. while maintaining a MUCH lower tax structure, allowing small, medium, and large businesses to thrive and allowing its citizenry a much higher standard of living.

But I hate businesses. I hate large businesses a lot, medium ones an average amount, and small ones just sort of mildly annoy me. Any tax structure that encourages them to thrive (and, by extension, grow) merely serves to increase my hatred proportionally. And the citizens may have a higher standard of living, but remember: They have to live in Alberta. Did you factor that into your formula?

What I like about tax hikes, on the other hand, is that they take money from rich people and businesses and use the money to provide services and products that the whole community needs, as well as helping to smooth out the inequalities that rich people and businesses thrive (to use your verb) upon. That's when taxes are properly managed, of course.

 

 

The partisanship I was referring to was that you were implying that this thread started as simply an attack on the NDP, while instead its an attack on all THREE established parties in this province.  As to which provinces we are competing against for business, it's ALL OF THEM!  This isn't to say that I want Nova Scotian to be prosperous at the expense of the rest of the country, but surely, if we had lower business taxes more companies would set up shop in our province instead of elsewhere, creating jobs, raising revenue, and benefitting the province as a whole.

As for your socialist rant at the end, the last time I checked provinces like Alberta had roads, hospitals, etc. while maintaining a MUCH lower tax structure, allowing small, medium, and large businesses to thrive and allowing its citizenry a much higher standard of living.

NSMark wrote:

 

The partisanship I was referring to was that you were implying that this thread started as simply an attack on the NDP, while instead its an attack on all THREE established parties in this province.  As to which provinces we are competing against for business, it's ALL OF THEM!  This isn't to say that I want Nova Scotian to be prosperous at the expense of the rest of the country, but surely, if we had lower business taxes more companies would set up shop in our province instead of elsewhere, creating jobs, raising revenue, and benefitting the province as a whole.

As for your socialist rant at the end, the last time I checked provinces like Alberta had roads, hospitals, etc. while maintaining a MUCH lower tax structure, allowing small, medium, and large businesses to thrive and allowing its citizenry a much higher standard of living.

Well of course you're attacking all three parties--you want everybody to join you on the margins. DUH!

As for your Ayn Randian philosophy, Alberta is still in Canada and Alberta still collects taxes and royalties, although, compared to Norway, Alberta has a piddling amount to show for the raping of the province. In fact, a true conservative would look at the huge amounts put away by Norway over a relatively short period of time and recognize Alberta as financially imprudent, at best, and probably stupefied by an idiotic ideology that argues you put yourself first by screwing thyself and beggaring thy neighbour while handing all thine wealth to huge corporations that will leave your home a smoldering ruin when they're done. What a bunch of fucking idiots. And that's the road on which you'd put Nova Scotia? Why don't you just leave if you hate the place that much?

But of course, for true examples of the neo-liberalism success story, we have Mexico, Colombia, and Chile. Bet you can't wait for the death squads required to support a system of enforced deprivation.

 

NSMark wrote:

Some people truly do need government assistance.  I do, however, feel that some of this burden should be taken off the government and left to private charity instead.

And what of this burden would you relieve from the government?

They've already given up on feeding the poor - that's why we've needed ever-larger food banks since the 80's.

They've given up on housing the poor, too - thus the need for an inefficient and inhospitable shelter system that must expand every year. No tax money saved  there, unfortunately, but charities certainly get the opportunity to chip in, if that's what's important to you.

Unionist wrote:

NSMark wrote:

Some people truly do need government assistance.  I do, however, feel that some of this burden should be taken off the government and left to private charity instead.

I agree - but only in the case of insolvent corporations and financial institutions.

 

Hmm, I'll admit that I think ...

I did answer it; just not in the way that you wanted me to.  I'll be more specific now: 

The burden can be reduced by increasing the eligibility requirements for government assistance and reducing the amount of money given out in social assistance in absolute dollars.  Better?

PS Not going to comment on your ramblings about death squads except to say that this is Canada so that kind of talk is irrelevant here.