Welcome Guest!
In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Taxation and the middle class
#16
(01-25-2020, 12:06 AM)Momo26 Wrote: Are you including federal? If also include CPP and EI deductions that's more like:

Salary
$80,000
Federal tax deduction
- $11,245
Provincial tax deduction
- $5,566
CPP deductions
- $2,749
EI deductions
- $860
Total tax
- $20,420
Net pay
* $59,580

The above is basically the maximum amount of taxes you will pay with an $80K income. The Stats Canada numbers are averages of actual taxes. The actual taxes are smaller because many people have some of spousal deductions, child deductions, RRSP deductions, sheltered income (TFSA), dividend, capital gains deductions, property tax credits, second-children's early-evening pre-sports left-handed piano lesson tax credits etc.

And while I didn't read the detail definition of "taxes" on the Stats Canada site, I do expect that EI and CPP are excluded from that, which would already drop the taxes to $17K and a tax rate of roughly 21%, before any of the deductions and tax credits.
Reply


#17
(01-24-2020, 09:38 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: Re: your last paragraph, this is exactly the kind of complicated nonsense that we should be moving away from. It’s easy to say “higher taxes on large vehicles”, but now you have to define “large”. Then somebody says “but I need it for my farming” so you put in an exemption. Then somebody else points out that there is obviously no way to move their large family so you put in an exemption for families with at least 4 kids. Then somebody else says they only have 3 kids but one of them is in a wheelchair. And so on and so on forever. Pretty soon your carbon strategy is as simple as, and works about as well as, municipal land use zoning.

Right, I should have worded it differently than saying tax on 'large vehicles'. What I really meant was higher tax on certain types of vehicles, such as sports cars (like a Corvette), some imports (like Porche, BMW, Mercedes), Hummers, Land Rovers, etc. Simply have a list of cars that are not fuel efficient and are purchased simply because they're either really fast or clearly a status symbol type of car. Soccer moms Caravan gets a pass, jock's Rubicon Jeep doesn't. This way, farmer Bill can still buy his John Deere and not have to pay extra, Leanne and her 7 children can get into a minivan without paying extra, but some spoiled lead-footed 18 year-old with his BMW speedster has to pay more.
Reply
#18
(01-26-2020, 07:46 PM)jeffster Wrote:
(01-24-2020, 09:38 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: Re: your last paragraph, this is exactly the kind of complicated nonsense that we should be moving away from. It’s easy to say “higher taxes on large vehicles”, but now you have to define “large”. Then somebody says “but I need it for my farming” so you put in an exemption. Then somebody else points out that there is obviously no way to move their large family so you put in an exemption for families with at least 4 kids. Then somebody else says they only have 3 kids but one of them is in a wheelchair. And so on and so on forever. Pretty soon your carbon strategy is as simple as, and works about as well as, municipal land use zoning.

Right, I should have worded it differently than saying tax on 'large vehicles'. What I really meant was higher tax on certain types of vehicles, such as sports cars (like a Corvette), some imports (like Porche, BMW, Mercedes), Hummers, Land Rovers, etc. Simply have a list of cars that are not fuel efficient and are purchased simply because they're either really fast or clearly a status symbol type of car. Soccer moms Caravan gets a pass, jock's Rubicon Jeep doesn't. This way, farmer Bill can still buy his John Deere and not have to pay extra, Leanne and her 7 children can get into a minivan without paying extra, but some spoiled lead-footed 18 year-old with his BMW speedster has to pay more.

I think government works best if it stays away from the judgemental moralizing. This version of the proposal is worse than having different rules for “large” vehicles. Now instead of defining “large” you have to define “objectionable”.

I already addressed the farm case — if Farmer Bill’s farm can only remain viable if he gets a break on the carbon emissions from his John Deere, it’s not really viable, only apparently viable because it’s free-riding on the atmosphere shared by all of us.

Similarly, if somebody is well-off enough to afford a minivan, they should not be free-riding on the atmosphere. Note too that they have choices to make about how far and how often they drive it, which will not be made in an economic manner if they don’t have to pay the full cost themselves (including the cost to everybody of increasing the CO₂ content of the atmosphere).

We’ve already been through this with SUVs, which aren’t subject to the same fuel efficiency regulations as cars, because they are officially trucks, being built on a truck frame. As soon as a descriptive category is used in law to make a distinction, it becomes subject to gaming in this way. It’s similar to a manager trying to manage computer programmers by measuring, and rewarding, the number of lines of code written or bugs fixed — it simply does not work.
Reply
#19
In general, taxes pay for communal things. I think that we are going to see a continued rise in insurance rates as the insurance industry is called upon to backstop the various failures to adapt to climate dynamism. Yes, government self-insure themselves for most infrastructure failures, but private insurance covers most everything else from crops to houses to lives. If taxes (or for that matter proper allocation of existing tax revenue) had kept up with needs to maintain infrastructure, disaster prevention services, and to address other factors in climate dynamism, then the insurance companies wouldn't be looking at ever mounting insurance payouts. As the payouts rise, so do our insurance rates, and voila, we're paying higher amounts of money into a collective pot to cover the functioning of society and our infrastructure.
Reply
#20
(02-04-2020, 12:16 AM)nms Wrote: ...adapt to climate dynamism.  ... address other factors in climate dynamism...
Maybe I've been living under a rock, but how would taxes affect "climate dynamism".  I'm not familiar with the term and to see it twice makes my head spin.

You mean like wind turbines or energy rebates?
Reply
#21
(02-04-2020, 02:07 PM)embe Wrote:
(02-04-2020, 12:16 AM)nms Wrote: ...adapt to climate dynamism.  ... address other factors in climate dynamism...
Maybe I've been living under a rock, but how would taxes affect "climate dynamism".  I'm not familiar with the term and to see it twice makes my head spin.

You mean like wind turbines or energy rebates?

I believe from context, "climate dynamism" (which is not a term I've heard either) was intended to mean the fact that global warming will lead to more extreme weather events, the climate will be more "dynamic" i.e., having more fluctuations and less stability.

I don't think taxes (other than the carbon tax) would affect it, but the increase in extreme weather events absolutely will increase taxes (and insurance rates) as we will have to pay for the damage done. The same folks denying climate change will no doubt object to paying for the resulting damage.
Reply
#22
(02-04-2020, 02:36 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: I don't think taxes (other than the carbon tax) would affect it, but the increase in extreme weather events absolutely will increase taxes (and insurance rates) as we will have to pay for the damage done. The same folks denying climate change will no doubt object to paying for the resulting damage.

Hey, it’s not their fault they’re wrong! Tongue
Reply


#23
(02-04-2020, 04:26 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:
(02-04-2020, 02:36 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: I don't think taxes (other than the carbon tax) would affect it, but the increase in extreme weather events absolutely will increase taxes (and insurance rates) as we will have to pay for the damage done. The same folks denying climate change will no doubt object to paying for the resulting damage.

Hey, it’s not their fault they’re wrong!  Tongue

Lol.

Food for thought, the PBO confirms that the majority of households (and somehow, all in Albert? I'm sure I'm not understanding that right) will receive more back from the carbon tax than they pay.

https://www.570news.com/2020/02/04/most-...n-tax-pbo/

This non-partisan, independent report flies in the face of the lies the conservative party, and especially conservative supporters have been pedaling for years, and as should be no surprise about threatening someone's religious views, has resulted in a fair bit of denial on the FB threads.
Reply
#24
Tax hike inbound:

https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...ehold.html
Reply
#25
(12-01-2020, 01:49 AM)Momo26 Wrote: Tax hike inbound:

https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...ehold.html

A minimal one, really, with a 1.1% increase in property taxes.

Quote:The proposed Kitchener budget freezes user fees for water, sewage and stormwater drainage next year, defers capital projects, and uses reserve funds to help with deficits.

They are presenting the capital budget on the 14th so we will find out what is being deferred.
Reply
#26
(12-01-2020, 08:27 AM)tomh009 Wrote: A minimal one, really, with a 1.1% increase in property taxes.

So probably not an increase at all. Remember, property taxes are the only tax where an increase in the total amount charged is characterized as an increase; other taxes only “increase” if the rate at which they are charged increases. For example, the HST has been at 13% in Ontario for some time; but the actual amount paid keeps going up most years.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the mill rate that determines the tax on any specific property went down next year.

Of course it’s also true that property taxes are the only tax that one has to pay just because one still owns a property; every other tax is some sort of transaction tax — something happens; tax is due (or at least, I can’t think of any other examples right away). So this will feel like an increase even if by the standards of other taxes it is not.
Reply
#27
Are we really sugar coating a tax hike on behalf if the City?

Call it a fee then - is this happening only this year with a dip in 2022 back to 2020 rates (or fees?)? I know the distinction between rate and fee and rate --> ultimately amount paid is a by product of the "value" of the house (re-assessed every few years etc)...what are we talking about here?
Reply
#28
(12-01-2020, 12:23 PM)Momo26 Wrote: Are we really sugar coating a tax hike on behalf if the City?

Call it a fee then - is this happening only this year with a dip in 2022 back to 2020 rates (or fees?)? I know the distinction between rate and fee and rate --> ultimately amount paid is a by product of the "value" of the house (re-assessed every few years etc)...what are we talking about here?

Fees (such as water) are being frozen at 2020 rates for the 2021 tax year. Expect the rates to increase again in 2022. Other fees could include ice rental, community centre rentals, etc.

Tax rates on home are a harding beast to figure out, as quite often the mill rate has to change -- it goes down if home prices go up to fast, and the mill rate goes up if home prices decreases. Overall, cities try to keep a homes value at a consistent value, and therefor property taxes go up in a nice smooth linear.

Toronto is a good example where taxes go up every year (just like here) but because homes are over-valued, Toronto ends up with one of the lowest tax rates in North America. For example, Kitchener's mill rate (including Regional taxes) is 1.1% -- Toronto's is less than half this at 0.44%.
Reply


#29
(12-01-2020, 08:38 AM)ijmorlan Wrote:
(12-01-2020, 08:27 AM)tomh009 Wrote: A minimal one, really, with a 1.1% increase in property taxes.

So probably not an increase at all. Remember, property taxes are the only tax where an increase in the total amount charged is characterized as an increase; other taxes only “increase” if the rate at which they are charged increases. For example, the HST has been at 13% in Ontario for some time; but the actual amount paid keeps going up most years.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the mill rate that determines the tax on any specific property went down next year.

Of course it’s also true that property taxes are the only tax that one has to pay just because one still owns a property; every other tax is some sort of transaction tax — something happens; tax is due (or at least, I can’t think of any other examples right away). So this will feel like an increase even if by the standards of other taxes it is not.

Indeed, property tax qualifies as a wealth tax albeit a particularly poorly designed one, but wealth taxes are something we should have more of.
Reply
#30
(12-01-2020, 12:23 PM)Momo26 Wrote: Are we really sugar coating a tax hike on behalf if the City?

Call it a fee then - is this happening only this year with a dip in 2022 back to 2020 rates (or fees?)? I know the distinction between rate and fee and rate --> ultimately amount paid is a by product of the "value" of the house (re-assessed every few years etc)...what are we talking about here?

Fees and taxes are fundamentally different.

Taxes are an amount paid depending on what you have, fees are paid based on what you use.  Taxes subsidize things--wealthy people pay more poor people pay less regardless of how much they use.  Fees are a direct pay for use, if I want to pay less in water, I can use less water, I am incentivised to use less water in fact.

I'm not sure why you're calling it sugar coating, and I'm not sure what you mean by "is this happening every year"...it happens every year, because costs go up as the population increases and the currency inflates.  1.1% is a very low increase.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links