Canada disgraces itself on the enviroment.

So if someone makes just above the tax bracket cut off and you raise his/her bracket's rate by 5%, a person just below the cut off makes nearly $9000 more a year. That is idiotic.

Originally posted by Starhawk
No it's how we function in a society, when we need more money to run programs that benefit society everyone must do what they can, and some who can do more, have to do more.

No, it's not how we have ever functioned as a 'society'. Those who are successful get to keep what they make. That is how it has been, and should stay.

'those who can do more, have to do more'? What bullshit is that? They already are paying their fair share. They already ARE doing more.

I never said where we would make the exact cut off point, so i don't see how you can assume that.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
No, it's not how we have ever functioned as a 'society'. Those who are successful get to keep what they make. That is how it has been, and should stay.

'those who can do more, have to do more'? What bullshit is that? They already are paying their fair share. They already ARE doing more.

No they are not, there is so many tax loopholes and so much they are allowed to write off that they don't pay anywhere near their share. We need to eliminate the loopholes as well as implement the tax increase.

Originally posted by Starhawk
People making less then that have families and do just fine, and yes all humans are greedy to some degree.

Originally posted by Starhawk
No they are not, there is so many tax loopholes and so much they are allowed to write off that they don't pay anywhere near their share. We need to eliminate the loopholes as well as implement the tax increase.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Yes, I simply choose to ignore right wing propaganda.

dude, it is not right wing anything
scientifically, we don't know how to make predictions about global climate. Hell, we can barely make local predictions for the weather tomorrow

Like, you are honestly just ignoring the limitations of science in this regard.

Originally posted by Nellinator
So I should work more hours, have invested in an education and yet live the same? That is a pure communist ideal. Lenin is the one that said (paraphrased) "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need". I was joking when I called you a communist before, but I'm not now... Commie.

Then you are a fascist. It's about as accurate. And raising taxes and eliminating loopholes is a socialist concept, not necessarily a communist one. You need to learn the meaning of that term.

Originally posted by Nellinator
What loopholes are you talking about? I just paid my taxes and there weren't any loopholes for me. If you are talking about the successful self-employed then you need to shut-up because they are simply reaping the benefits of a huge risk they took.

he also ignores the fact that most "loopholes" involve rich people reinvesting their personal capital into the infrastructure of society.

Originally posted by inimalist
he also ignores the fact that most "loopholes" involve rich people reinvesting their personal capital into the infrastructure of society.

No allot of them are business loopholes, allowing them to write off expenses.

Originally posted by Starhawk
No allot of them are business loopholes, allowing them to write off expenses.

....

did you even read what I wrote?

Someone is a fascist because they wish to keep what they earned and not contribute more (percentage wise) simply because they're successful...

1) Look up the word "fascism"

2) Look up the word "communism"

Clearly, if anyone's ideas are an "ism" here, it's yours.

BTW, since you're so sure that this proposed 5% will fix everything, why don't you finally clarify where/who exactly it would hit? I.E., those who make $#+.00? (Question 1)

Originally posted by Starhawk
No allot of them are business loopholes, allowing them to write off expenses.

Such as? (Question 2)

I'm a law student not an accountant, we would get advice from experts on where to make the cut off point.

lol

why not talk to an economist or 2 😉

They are all about taxing the rich

Actually we are taking tax law next semester in the fall, I am going to propose my idea to the class and see what the general opinion on it is.

Originally posted by Starhawk
I'm a law student not an accountant, we would get advice from experts on where to make the cut off point.

That's basically how I thought you'd answer, with another silly dodge... Keep on making your rant-claims without providing any valid support (facts) or sound logic, they're amusing.

Any answer to your "loopholes" claims?

I bet there will be lots of support for it

anti-rich is always an easy sell.

However, I would honestly recommend you talk to an economist about why it is good to have exceptionally greedy rich people in one's country.

So to summaries,

You want to

Get more money from the rich to make sure Canada complies to a treaty that works on an assumption that man kind has anything to do with global warming, and that even if the assumption is correct will make no real difference?

So if you want to tax the rich extra for that, would you also want to tax them extra for welfare programs in Africa and more for public schooling?

Eventually they will run out of money you know...

Originally posted by Starhawk
Actually we are taking tax law next semester in the fall, I am going to propose my idea to the class and see what the general opinion on it is.

Can I put down a $50.00 bet on "Outright laughter and ridicule"?

Originally posted by inimalist
I bet there will be lots of support for it

anti-rich is always an easy sell.

However, I would honestly recommend you talk to an economist about why it is good to have exceptionally greedy rich people in one's country.

LOL and here I was told it would be unpopular.

As to what has been said in the last few points, that has all been covered already.