[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

A retroactive tax increase? Try that in the USA and there'd be blood.

Or worse--lawsuits I don't think you can pass retroactive laws, can you?

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

A retroactive tax increase? Try that in the USA and there'd be blood.

Or worse--lawsuits I don't think you can pass retroactive laws, can you?

The prohibition against ex post facto laws is embedded in the Constitution yet we still have idiots who come up with ways to try to pass them anyway.

So far they always get stopped.

The point at which they don't is the point at which I stop playing nice.

[Public_Domain]

[BartSimpson]

Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:

Unless it has anything to do with the poor.

Then it's "class war".

What a headache.

You don't understand that actions like this are what creates poverty. When a government raises taxes after the fact of the taxing event has occured then that government cannot be trusted and people will necessarily flee its jurisdiction or overthrow it.

Where do you limit this?

If you can retroactively raise income taxes then why not retroactively raise property taxes, sales taxes, and etc?

And what is the effect?

Jobs will be lost and you'll have more poor people.

But don't let me stop you from defending this idiocy.

[Public_Domain]

[Public_Domain]

[Prof_Chomsky]

The hike isn't so bad but retro? That's criminal!
That's like passing a law retroactively making alcohol illegal then throwing everyone in jail. In fact I seem to remember from law class our constitution explicitly forbids that. No way it holds up on appeal if they pass it.

[martin14]

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

The hike isn't so bad but retro? That's criminal!
That's like passing a law retroactively making alcohol illegal then throwing everyone in jail. In fact I seem to remember from law class our constitution explicitly forbids that. No way it holds up on appeal if they pass it.

Notwithstanding...



edit: doesnt even need..it's an opinion, though

$1:

As for retroactivity, the Constitution of the United States forbids the passage of ex post facto laws. Unfortunately for Quebeckers, the Canadian Charter prohibits only criminal laws that are retroactive – and though heavy taxation may sometimes feel like a crime, it isn’t.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commenta ... le4572809/

[CanadianJeff]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Proculation Proculation:

CanadianJeff CanadianJeff:

From the story it sounds like a 3 to 4 percent increase. That's actually not so bad. I was thinking from the tone of the piece it was going to be more of a 10% increase.

But to make it retroactive. I hope she gets skinned alive.

For 130,000$ to 249,999$ it passes from 24% to 28%
For 250,000$+ it passes from 24% to 31%.

I bet the government will make LESS money with the higher taxes.

Let's say someone earning 300,000$ decides to move his business outside Quebec.
Instead of getting 8300$ more in tax income, the gov will lose 128,500$.
They will need 15+ people earning 300,000$ only to compensate for the loss of 1 person.

Add to that the stall in private investments, businesses leaving or closing, etc. They will loose money and cripple economic development in Quebec for years.

But people like the Premier and those of her ilk don't get that.

Math doesn't matter.

If your willing to take on all the expenses of moving for a mere 3% then go ahead but it's likely far more worth it to stay put in Quebec with your already established client base.

This will however effect the opening of new business and also where a chain chooses to open new stores.

So really your half right and for the record I'm not one of her "ilk" don't even try and put me in the same category as that separatist bitch.

[OnTheIce]

CanadianJeff CanadianJeff:

If your willing to take on all the expenses of moving for a mere 3% then go ahead but it's likely far more worth it to stay put in Quebec with your already established client base.

This will however effect the opening of new business and also where a chain chooses to open new stores.

So really your half right and for the record I'm not one of her "ilk" don't even try and put me in the same category as that separatist bitch.

3% retroactive and 3% going forward, year after year.

Business that have established client bases will likely stay put but you have those who have corporate HO's and other wealthy individuals won't take this shit lying down.

[Unsound]

CanadianJeff CanadianJeff:

If your willing to take on all the expenses of moving for a mere 3% then go ahead but it's likely far more worth it to stay put in Quebec with your already established client base.

I think it's the retro-active nature of the hike that's more likely to scare people into moving than the actual amount. Very hard to plan a future in a place where the past isn't even safe anymore.

[JoBec]

The new bracket for $130,000 on income is only part of the story.

The PQ also proposed to increase the capital gains inclusion rate to 75% (from 50%) and to raise the tax on dividends by cutting the current dividend tax credit by 50%.
So, it will not only affect people earning over $130,000 but many many more.

This makes me sick !! There is so much disdain in Quebec for wealth : and these measures are one perfect example.

Tax specialists have been very busy the last few days. I heard some people were looking at alternatives to get out of this trap like changing province of residence. I certainly would !

[PluggyRug]

CanadianJeff CanadianJeff:

If your willing to take on all the expenses of moving for a mere 3% then go ahead but it's likely far more worth it to stay put in Quebec with your already established client base.

This will however effect the opening of new business and also where a chain chooses to open new stores.

So really your half right and for the record I'm not one of her "ilk" don't even try and put me in the same category as that separatist bitch.

Already happening.

My neighbour works for a hydraulics company in Quebec. He has been told to sus out premises to move their headquarters into Ontario.

[QBall]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

A retroactive tax increase? Try that in the USA and there'd be blood.

Or worse--lawsuits I don't think you can pass retroactive laws, can you?

The prohibition against ex post facto laws is embedded in the Constitution yet we still have idiots who come up with ways to try to pass them anyway.

So far they always get stopped.

The point at which they don't is the point at which I stop playing nice.

Yes but Quebec has a historical love/hate relationship with our Charter. They only follow it when it works to their advantage, otherwise they have the Notwithstanding Clause seated loosely in their holsters.

Seeing how the newly elected PM in France was ready to enact a 75% income tax (not sure if that was ever enacted) on people earning over 1 million Euros a year (Laffer curve engage!) I would guess overtaxing the wealthy is a French thing.

[BartSimpson]

Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The point at which they don't is the point at which I stop playing nice.

You type far too hostile and volatile words for a forum like this, threatening violence in hypothetical situations.

I personally think it's a good thing I can't get away with such vitriolic nonsense - it's really grounding to have it noted.

Anyway, you were saying about killing them all?

The enemies of liberty need to be constantly reminded that there are people who are willing to kill and die for their liberties. See, the idea of letting those people know that you're willing to visit harm upon them for their transgressions is a fine way to deter those transgressions in the first place.

By the way, I'm not saying anything here that your own CF would not do themselves were it necessary.