[bootlegga]

andyt andyt:

Don't know about Ontario, doubt if Boots is suffering from Alberta taxation. No sales tax, no medical premium. I don't think he has anything to complain about.

And for income taxes, federal is by far the largest bite, and those have been declining since the Chretien days. People whining about taxes should have their heads examined, because I'm sure they eagerly gobble up all the services those taxes buy.

As I said previously, I don't find taxes onerous, even though I am paying a fair bit more than I did a decade ago - but that's mostly because I'm earning more too.

However, unlike most Albertans, I wouldn't be against the government re-instating health care premiums OR a low sales tax (2-3%) to deal with Alberta's financial picture.

[andyt]

Sales tax is better. Paying more because you're earning more, then whining about it is nuts. Not saying you did that exactly, but you did seem to want to go down Shep's road of making the taxes the problem. They're not, except they're too low to pay for the services we all expect the govt to provide.

[Regina]

bootlegga bootlegga:

However, unlike most Albertans, I wouldn't be against the government re-instating health care premiums OR a low sales tax (2-3%) to deal with Alberta's financial picture.

Although maybe it should, I wonder if that would ever happen. As an outsider it seems that many Albertans wear the "no tax" badge with pride. Seems part of the culture and may be hard for some to swallow.
I have no idea.......just an observation.

[ShepherdsDog]

talk on taxes means so little coming from someone like Andy, seeing as he gets almost everything back.

[bootlegga]

Regina Regina:

bootlegga bootlegga:

However, unlike most Albertans, I wouldn't be against the government re-instating health care premiums OR a low sales tax (2-3%) to deal with Alberta's financial picture.

Although maybe it should, I wonder if that would ever happen. As an outsider it seems that many Albertans wear the "no tax" badge with pride. Seems part of the culture and may be hard for some to swallow.
I have no idea.......just an observation.

Oh, the government that does either will likely serve their last term in office, because of that sentiment.

However, Alberta has about 150,000 people arrive every year - and none of them bring roads, bridges, hospitals, schools or anything else with them. The cost to support them has to come from somewhere and the current tax regime (which includes a 10% flat provincial income tax) simply isn't cutting it.

It's time to put on our big boy pants and join the rest of the world IMHO.

[BigKeithO]

bootlegga bootlegga:

However, Alberta has about 150,000 people arrive every year - and none of them bring roads, bridges, hospitals, schools or anything else with them. The cost to support them has to come from somewhere and the current tax regime (which includes a 10% flat provincial income tax) simply isn't cutting it.

It's time to put on our big boy pants and join the rest of the world IMHO.

But don't those new people pay taxes too? I can never understand this argument. New people in the province means we must tax everyone more to pay for all the new infrastructure these new people will use?! These people aren't moving to Alberta because they can't find jobs, they are moving here to work. New workers means more tax revenue by default, a competent government would use these new revenues to fund what needs funding. Taxing everyone more because more people live here just seems like a slimy money grab to me.

[Freakinoldguy]

BigKeithO BigKeithO:

bootlegga bootlegga:

However, Alberta has about 150,000 people arrive every year - and none of them bring roads, bridges, hospitals, schools or anything else with them. The cost to support them has to come from somewhere and the current tax regime (which includes a 10% flat provincial income tax) simply isn't cutting it.

It's time to put on our big boy pants and join the rest of the world IMHO.

But don't those new people pay taxes too? I can never understand this argument. New people in the province means we must tax everyone more to pay for all the new infrastructure these new people will use?! These people aren't moving to Alberta because they can't find jobs, they are moving here to work. New workers means more tax revenue by default, a competent government would use these new revenues to fund what needs funding. Taxing everyone more because more people live here just seems like a slimy money grab to me.

Only if they live in your province. As it stands now there are alot of people commuting to work in Alberta from Sask, BC and beyond who take money out of the Province and pay their Provincial portion of the income tax in their home Province. This means Alberta is losing out on alot of potential revenue especially since they don't have a Provincial sales tax to recoup that money back through what these itinerant workers spend to live and entertain themselves while in Alberta.

$1:

Normally your province of residence for income tax purpose is where you were living on December 31st of the tax year. However, in this case the determining fact will be the location where he ordinarily resides. The determining factor here would be where you reside, the family home is, bank accounts etc. It would appear the province of residence would be British Columbi

I'm surprised someone hasn't noticed this and decided to try and figure out a way to recoup some of this lost income.

[Kazakh]

Very strange article. As they say, there's small lie, big lie and statistics... A lot of meaningless juggling of useless data, not showing anything about real life income/cost of living/prices comparison etc.

The purpose of the article is to say, J. Trudeau lied.

Well, the article actually made it sound that he in reality didn't. Not a very successful smear journalism.

And I don't support J. Trudeau, he doesn't seem to be smart.

[BeaverFever]

This article, and other NP article on the CKA News section making a similar argument, are flawed.

The "increased net worth" argument has nothing to do with income - the National Post article was titled "the paycheque-to-paycheque myth" and the article does not even mention anytinhg pay or income.

a) The "net worth" claim is really based on the fact that real estate prices have skyrocketed to absurd levels in urban centres, but this is not really wealth - it is at best unrealized wealth, since you would actually have to sell or remortgage your house to see any of it.

b) Beyond that, real estate values in many cases are largely based on speculativevalue, meaning that as we saw with the US housing bubble, they are often over-priced and can fall dramatically, leaving the home owner owing more on a mortgage than the house is actually worth.

c) As Kevin Milligan writes in Macleans, "changes in house prices just transfer resources between those who currently have houses and the coming generation who will soon buy houses. Every seller needs a buyer. However pleasant it may be for the present middle class to be enjoying sizable real estate gains, the future middle class will suffer if they have to buy in at exaggerated prices. In this way, wealth accumulation through real estate benefits one generation’s middle class over the middle class of the next."


So the net of both articles is that Canadians who are lucky enough to own houses are house rich but cash poor. Those who aren't lucky enough to own a house are screwed in both categories.

[andyt]

What counts for a discussion of the middle class is median, not average incomes. I know Vancouver doesn't look so hot in that category, while having the highest housing prices. That puts a huge squeeze on middle income earners entering the housing market.

Also, the middle is being squeezed by the loss of high paying semi-skilled jobs. There just aren't enough high-skill jobs to replace them, nor can everybody train to do them, so many in the middle are falling into the low-income group.

The top 20% of income earners in Canada are doing very well, but the gap between them and the 80% is widening. Who's really getting kicked in the balls are the bottom 20%. This does not make for a cohesive society with content citizens. Our income inequality is not as bad as the US, but it's moving in the wrong direction.