Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11144
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 14 Jan 2020, 2:49 pm

Ray, for 2019, Canada’s Income Tax Brackets (Federal_ were as follows:
The first $12,069 is untaxed. (This is the basic deduction. )
15% on the first $47,630 of taxable income, plus
20.5% on the next $47,629 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over 47,630 up to $95,259),plus
26% on the next $52,408 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $95,259 up to $147,667),plus
29% on the next $62,704 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over 147,667 up to $210,371), plus
33% of taxable income over $210,371
Territory or Provincial taxs are from 4% to 12% and kick in at $7700 to $16000 depending on the territory/province.
https://www.taxtips.ca/nrcredits/tax-cr ... 9-base.htm

If you really want to get into the weeds, I don't think you'll find a significant difference ....with the US rates (depending on state)
https://taxfoundation.org/2019-tax-brackets/

The ;point being, that after these taxes, Americans, either corporations or individuals still have health insurance costs.... And many of those with insurance still have co-pays, or annual or life time capitation rates...
Except for people like Bbauska.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7042
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 14 Jan 2020, 3:10 pm

Thanks again for the shoutout, friend!
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7042
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 15 Jan 2020, 10:04 am

https://politics.theonion.com/hey-remember-john-hickenlooper-says-wolf-blitzer-to-1841007120

Just for comedy's sake!
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3341
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 15 Jan 2020, 10:15 am

It's not just health insurance costs that lower-income people have to deal with in the US. There are student loans, high rate credit cards, payday loans etc that make it hard to get by.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4888
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 15 Jan 2020, 6:25 pm

Ricky P didn't write:

I see your point. For low income people, taxes are categorically lower in the US than Canada: (1) income taxes are lower (2) state / province taxes are lower in the US (3) sales taxes are lower (4) unemployment tax does not exist (5) gas taxes are lower. The US poor pay very little in tax relative to Canadians.

I made a mistake when I categorically wrote that the Canadian poor pay lower taxes than the US poor. Thank you for correcting me.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7042
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 15 Jan 2020, 7:44 pm

Ray Jay wrote:Ricky P didn't write:

I see your point. For low income people, taxes are categorically lower in the US than Canada: (1) income taxes are lower (2) state / province taxes are lower in the US (3) sales taxes are lower (4) unemployment tax does not exist (5) gas taxes are lower. The US poor pay very little in tax relative to Canadians.

I made a mistake when I categorically wrote that the Canadian poor pay lower taxes than the US poor. Thank you for correcting me.


RickyP Misquoted you?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3341
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 15 Jan 2020, 8:29 pm

Nope. This is RJ saying that Ricky did not write a post conceding that he was wrong about Canadian taxes being lower than US taxes for poor people....
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7042
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 16 Jan 2020, 9:37 am

freeman3 wrote:Nope. This is RJ saying that Ricky did not write a post conceding that he was wrong about Canadian taxes being lower than US taxes for poor people....


Thank you. I did not follow the irony, I guess.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11144
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 20 Jan 2020, 12:31 pm

rayjay
Ricky P didn't write:

I see your point.

Because I don't see your point...
Social Mobility, is a mix of not just taxation but also social benefits.
Including in that, as Freeman mentioned are health care expenses, access to education including the cost of that education, maternity and paternity leave, and more.
Picking away at the tax code as reflected in 51 American and 13 Canadian jurisdictions is really just a deflection.
The overall questions is, where is it better to be poor?
Its better to be poor where its easier to grow your family our of poverty.
The World Economic Forum attempts to measure social mobility among nations.
http://reports.weforum.org/social-mobil ... -rankings/

Above is the report
Below is an article about the report.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/20/busi ... index.html

Now, I have to as RayJay .. Is access to low cost education, access to free at the point of care health care, maternity and paternity leave and more generous minimum wages and employment laws worth something in your equation Ray?
Even if you could prove me definitely wrong (and with so many jurisdictions and complex tax codes, as I've discovered, I think we could both be right sometimes) I'll stand by the "better to be poor in Canada" comment. Though its even better to be poor in Denmark....

Its not just taxes...
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4888
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 20 Jan 2020, 3:07 pm

Ricky, I've proven you to be wrong as it relates to taxes. You made a false statement, and all your bobbing and weaving doesn't change that.

To me you are just like Trump. You have no respect for the truth.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11144
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 21 Jan 2020, 3:21 pm

You cherry picked one particular tax bracket and dismissed the benefits available that offset costs...

And its not a fact since you never bothered to look at the averages across the 64 jurisdictions with all of the different rates and brackets. Some truth.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4888
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 22 Jan 2020, 6:47 am

rickyp wrote:You cherry picked one particular tax bracket and dismissed the benefits available that offset costs...

And its not a fact since you never bothered to look at the averages across the 64 jurisdictions with all of the different rates and brackets. Some truth.


That's a very duplicitous comment considering that you started this with writing:

Tax rates for poor Canadians are less than Americans


You've provided no support for your statement, and now you require that I look at 64 jurisdictions to prove your wrong. (BTW there are more than 64 tax jurisdictions between the 2 countries.)

But I will take the bait. It's clear that you are duplicitous, now I will show that you are wrong.

Let's use a family of 4 who makes $30,000 USD per year in Mass which is considered to be a high tax state. Their tax bite

Federal Income Taxes $0 (deduction of $24,800)The rest is at 10% but the earned income tax credit is $5,920. So the $520 of tax would net a refund of $5,400. There is also a child tax credit, this person would actually receive an additional $1,400 back from the government for the child tax credit.

FICA (social security and Medicare) = 7.62%, or $2,295. They are still ahead because of the tax credits above. My understand is that net between these two taxes they are receiving money back from the government (although I want to review the technicalities on how much they receive back.)

This family is paying negative federal tax.

Unemployment tax: $0, but you have it in Canada.

Mass. Family Leave Act - .38% or $114.

MA income tax $30,000 - $12,800 deductions = $17,200 taxable income X 5% tax rate = 860. However, there is a MA earned income tax credit = to 30% of the federal amount, so this MA tax would be wiped out.

If the person drives, they will pay gas taxes, but those would be lower than the gas taxes in Canada.

So, in the US, a low income person basically gets money back from the government and pays negative taxes because of the earned income tax credit.

That's why your statement that in Canada they pay lower taxes than the US is preposterous. Pick a comparable jurisdiction and prove me wrong or stop with your incessant untruths and mis directions.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3348
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 02 Mar 2020, 7:55 am

From a game theory standpoint, it made no sense for Mayor Pete to drop out two days before Super Tuesday. Let's say he could pick up 30 of the 1000+ delegates being given out tomorrow. The nominee needs to have a majority of the delegates, and the delegates he'd win are selected because they support Mayor Pete. He could drop out after Super Tuesday and have 50 or so delegates that he could direct at the convention, not necessarily to be the nominee, but to help select a nominee he wants.

Why do you think he dropped out just two days before Super Tuesday? I could see running out of money, but if he was out of money, he could have just coasted and dropped out after Super Tuesday. Was there a deal? Did the DNC come down on him? Thoughts?
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3348
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 02 Mar 2020, 4:04 pm

Damn, now Klobuchar drops. That really makes zero sense. She was likely going to win Minnesota and take all those delegates, and they're voting TOMORROW!. Must be deals or pressure going on. This is so against her own interest.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3341
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 02 Mar 2020, 4:24 pm

Yeah, the Democratic Establishment is desperate to stop the Bernie train so I think we can presume that there was pressure brought to bear. There really was no reason for Steyer, Buttigieg or Klobuchar to get out before Super Tuesday. I am changing my vote from Warren to Bernie because it really annoys me how the Democratic Party...is so dang undemocratic! Biden wins one statte--a state whose demographics are atypical--and all the moderates get out? Ridiculous.