Finally....

[LEP]

I would summarize the article this way. It is a good thing that those making a profit should pay more.

But while you are making changes why not give us a few new loopholes so we can pay less.

By the way the changes will come by regulation not a bill so it doesn't go through parliament for approval.

[sofa.king]

Guess I learned something today,

[mcfarms]

Grassfarmer you Dotard


How much of a ‘fair share’ do Canada’s top earners pay? You might be surprised
Charles Lammam and Ben Eisen: Canada’s tax system is progressive, extracting proportionately more money from those on the higher end of the income scale


Special to Financial Post
Special to Financial Post
September 27, 2016
6:07 PM EDT
Filed under
FP Comment
Comment
Facebook
Twitter
Email
More
“Like all Canadians, I am very concerned over allegations that some wealthy Canadians are not paying their fair share of taxes.” That’s a recent statement from Diane Lebouthillier, federal minister of national revenue. While Lebouthillier was talking about real estate speculators, the notion that top earners don’t pay their “fair share” is a recurring narrative about Canada’s tax system. Of course, “fair share” is never actually defined. But the implication is that top earners are getting away without paying much tax.

The data tell a different story. In reality, Canada’s tax system is progressive, extracting proportionately more money from those on the higher end of the income scale.

But data alone cannot determine whether the distribution of the tax burden in Canada is “fair” because what’s fair is different to different people. One thing is certain — the notion that upper-earners face a lighter tax burden is false.

First, consider the personal income taxes paid by the top 10 per cent of earners — the country’s high-skilled, educated workers including entrepreneurs, business professionals, engineers, doctors and lawyers. According to Statistics Canada data, in 2013 the top 10 per cent earned 35 per cent of Canada’s total income yet paid 54 per cent of federal and provincial income taxes.

But that of course is just income taxes. Canadians pay a wide range of other taxes — some visible, many hidden — including payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, fuel taxes, profit taxes, “sin” taxes on liquor and tobacco, and much more. When we account for all these taxes, our calculations find that the top 10 per cent earns 32 per cent of all income in Canada but pays 40 per cent of all taxes.


Canada’s top personal income tax rate is second highest among G7 countries, behind only France

Meanwhile, middle- and lower-income earners pay proportionately less. Consider that the bottom half of earners in Canada earn 22 per cent of all income yet pay only 15 per cent of all taxes.

The imbalance between lower and higher income groups, in terms of the percentage of income earned and total taxes paid, challenges the narrative that high-income earners don’t pay their “fair share” of taxes. What’s more, it flatly disproves the notion that upper-earners get off easy.

Another way to look at the issue is by considering the average tax rate of Canadians in different income groups. After accounting for all taxes imposed by the federal, provincial and local governments, Canadians in higher income groups pay a higher average tax rate. For the top 10 per cent of earners, the average total tax rate is 56 per cent — much higher than the 13 per cent average rate of the bottom 10 per cent.


For more context, look abroad. The top personal income tax rate in Canada (federal and provincial combined) now stands at 54 per cent — high by international standards. In fact, Canada’s top personal income tax rate is sixth highest among 34 industrialized countries and second highest among G7 countries, behind only France.

A high and uncompetitive personal income tax rate is harmful to Canada’s economy. Why? Because top-earning Canadians can lose to taxes more than 50 cents of every extra dollar they earn in labour income, discouraging them from working, saving, investing and being entrepreneurial. While tax rates that increase rapidly as Canadians earn more income aren’t intended to stop people from working and being more successful, research shows they have that very effect.

Despite the reoccurring narrative, and recent musings by Lebouthillier, Canada’s top earners already shoulder much of the country’s tax burden.

Charles Lammam and Ben Eisen are analysts at the Fraser Institute

[Robertbarlage]

Has this union did anything good for farmers ever?

[Braveheart]

It is an unholy union of Socialist misfits. An opinion column that once again let's down farmers instead of villifying a gov't whose spending is out of control.

[Hamloc]

In the financial post article according to Statscan the top 10% of income earners in Canada earn 35% of the income but pay 54% of the of the provincial and federal income taxes. How much do you think they would have to pay before our illustrious Prime Minister would feel they were paying their fair share?

[seabass]

Told ya he's a dumbass

[grassfarmer]

Predictable, ill-informed, hysterical rantings by people who still haven't bothered to read or understand what is being proposed and who may be affected.

I agree with the NFU statement that "If a farm is prosperous enough to clear well over $200,000/year after all expenses are paid (including salaries), it should not be a hardship to pay taxes at the same rate that someone would who earns that much money in a salaried position."

How can you argue with that? Why should farmers not pay the same rate?

[GDR]

You guys gotta quit being so stubborn just cause it's grass farmer and nfu. I don't like the NFL either but that statement is pretty good. There suggested changes are spot on, keep the investors out of our land base, help young farmers, higher cap gains exemption - pretty tough to argue against that???

It's right about getting farmers all riled up over something they don't understand. I've been thinking all week we are just looking like a bunch of winers.

FJ the comment about paying MORE to transfer to the next generation than strangers is fear mongering started by someone with absolutely no truth behind it. It may cost more tax than it does now but not more than selling out.

[Braveheart]

It's an easy argument. A farm may clear $200,000 or more a year but not consistently. With weather and market risk, good financial results cannot be assured every year. So retained earnings from the good years are needed to shore up the lean years.

Plus, if we want to pass our family businesses on to our children without a crippling tax burden that would put them at a disadvantage from the start, these tax change have to be stopped. Shouldn't a strong sustainable industry be the goal? We surely don't want any more foreigners buying farms. They seem to carry the socialism disease.

But back to the NFU, why, why would any organization that claims to represent farmers support in anyway these measures? Does the NFU doctrine promote envy of the successful? Does the handbook suggest heavy taxation as a way to return us to the Peasant State?

[grassfarmer]

Thanks GDR - finally a voice of common sense.

It's an easy argument. A farm may clear $200,000 or more a year but not consistently. With weather and market risk, good financial results cannot be assured every year. So retained earnings from the good years are needed to shore up the lean years.

Yeah and the guy getting the $200,000+ salary may lose his job - does that mean he should pay less tax every year too?

[Braveheart]

He will likely lose his job when the small business he works for is crippled with unreasonable taxation.