Panama papers: China censors online discussion

[Anonymous]

What are you smoking? I try and cut you some slack for an obvious troll post and you respond with school yard jibberish.

I hate to break this to you, but I've made no troll post regardless of how it may appear to you.  I made one post speaking my mind and my opinion about taxation.  I did not offer it as fact or assertion, did not support it with citations, and completely assumed it would be read as opinion...as several other posts in the thread were offered and received.



You may think I just made up the shit about tumbrels and lampposts and torches, but it was widely reported last year that in a speech to other 1%ers, a 1%er warned the others about the probable outcome of continuing to widen the income inequality gap.  My words are a paraphrase of his.  I'll be happy to provide a link upon request.  And I'd like to know what in my post you deem "obviously troll."

Do you know who pays the most taxes in the states and Canada. It probably is not you.

It definitely is not I, and I sure as hell didn't claim it was.  I'm confused by the numbers you've supplied, since my tax rate is over 20% and I'm definitely below the median household income level.  But I wouldn't question the TPI and the numbers are not relevant to my post anyway.





~~~~



p.s. for Shen Li... wading into a thread just to flame someone is a sure sign that they've handed your ass to you on some other thread.

[Anonymous]

I think the best idea by far was Herman's.

Yeah?  And what do we lose because of it?

You gain not lose. Money does not go looking for safe havens. It's home, we can shrink the size of the CRA and we have a reliable tax stream. The reason people put money off shore is they do not want to be charged one hundred times more than everyone else for the same services. Cap the income tax and the money stays in our economy.

[Anonymous]

I think the best idea by far was Herman's.

Yeah?  And what do we lose because of it?

You gain not lose. Money does not go looking for safe havens. It's home, we can shrink the size of the CRA and we have a reliable tax stream. The reason people put money off shore is they do not want to be charged one hundred times more than everyone else for the same services. Cap the income tax and the money stays in our economy.

[Anonymous]

I think the best idea by far was Herman's.

Yeah?  And what do we lose because of it?

You gain not lose. Money does not go looking for safe havens. It's home, we can shrink the size of the CRA and we have a reliable tax stream. The reason people put money off shore is they do not want to be charged one hundred times more than everyone else for the same services. Cap the income tax and the money stays in our economy.

[RW]

I think the best idea by far was Herman's.

Yeah?  And what do we lose because of it?

You gain not lose. Money does not go looking for safe havens. It's home, we can shrink the size of the CRA and we have a reliable tax stream. The reason people put money off shore is they do not want to be charged one hundred times more than everyone else for the same services. Cap the income tax and the money stays in our economy.

The reason people put money off shore is because they can.



In terms of "services", GST is charged the same rate to everyone.  Same with PST.  In terms of income taxation, they don't pay 100 times more than anyone except the poor.  Say I pay 24% in tax.  They don't pay 240% in tax.



If you want flat tax rates, fine but they're still going to pay more because they make more.  If they don't like paying so many dollars in tax, they're welcome to make less money.  I'd happily make more and pay more.

[Anonymous]

I'm sorry but Peaches is making cogent arguments and you fools are flapping like fish out of water.  Have you all gone unchallenged for so long that all you can do is drool and yell "troll!"?



Hey Herm - people with more money are going to pay a higher percentage of the total tax dollars.  We didn't need some report from some crap NGO to tell us that.

No he or she is not. The tired liberal  argument that has been debunked long ago. All he or she has is the type of snippy little flame board comments that Freud used when he was here.



I could tell Peaches was a douchebag from his grand entrance and this snippy little turd has done everything to prove me right.

[RW]

Oh stuff it already Shen.  Your asshole shtick is fucking old.

[Anonymous]

I think the best idea by far was Herman's.

Yeah?  And what do we lose because of it?

You gain not lose. Money does not go looking for safe havens. It's home, we can shrink the size of the CRA and we have a reliable tax stream. The reason people put money off shore is they do not want to be charged one hundred times more than everyone else for the same services. Cap the income tax and the money stays in our economy.

The reason people put money off shore is because they can.



In terms of "services", GST is charged the same rate to everyone.  Same with PST.  In terms of income taxation, they don't pay 100 times more than anyone except the poor.  Say I pay 24% in tax.  They don't pay 240% in tax.



If you want flat tax rates, fine but they're still going to pay more because they make more.  If they don't like paying so many dollars in tax, they're welcome to make less money.  I'd happily make more and pay more.

Of course they can. We are generally talking about the best and brightest. You would need to turn the West into a North Korea to stop it. There would be a massive brain drain if we did that. There will always be some country that won't comply to get that money and talent in their country. Or the smart thing would be to cap income taxes, money stays and is invested in Canada, we lower the cost of collecting revenue and we have a steady stream of revenue.

[RW]

So you really think the cost of collecting is the same as what we'd lose in tax revenues?

[Anonymous]

You may think I just made up the shit about tumbrels and lampposts and torches, but it was widely reported last year that in a speech to other 1%ers, a 1%er warned the others about the probable outcome of continuing to widen the income inequality gap.  My words are a paraphrase of his.  I'll be happy to provide a link upon request.  And I'd like to know what in my post you deem "obviously troll."

How is progressive taxation working for ya? Forty five percent of Americans pay no effective income tax and the top 20% pay more than 80. If it was 100 would so-called income equality disappear? Robin Hoodism is not working South of the border.

p.s. for Shen Li... wading into a thread just to flame someone is a sure sign that they've handed your ass to you on some other thread.

Please, if you're going to talk about asses go back to Freud on the flame boards.

[Anonymous]

So you really think the cost of collecting is the same as what we'd lose in tax revenues?

No, but the value added of having that money working in Canada instead of the Cayman Islands is good for all of us.

[Anonymous]

It's unreasonable to expect the very rich to voluntarily give the government millions and millions. Since it won't happen let's find a top amount that deincentivises taking that capital outside Canada.

[RW]

So you really think the cost of collecting is the same as what we'd lose in tax revenues?

No, but the value added of having that money working in Canada instead of the Cayman Islands is good for all of us.

Paying CRA employees is having money working in Canada.  Closing taxation loopholes makes less work and keeps money here.

[RW]

It's unreasonable to expect the very rich to voluntarily give the government millions and millions. Since it won't happen let's find a top amount that deincentivises taking that capital outside Canada.

Tax the shit out of money taken out of the country and set incentives for money kept in the country.

[Anonymous]

You may think I just made up the shit about tumbrels and lampposts and torches, but it was widely reported last year that in a speech to other 1%ers, a 1%er warned the others about the probable outcome of continuing to widen the income inequality gap.

Was he referring to declining wages or low government revenue>