Canada: Tax Haven.

[JayB]

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

yeah, and what about factoring in all the other taxes

[olyclimber]

Thats because they don't have to pay for socialized medicine.

[Hugh Conway]

of course that can't be right

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

it only includes income and social security taxes.

[Hugh Conway]

since consumption isn't mandatory consumption taxs shouldn't be included for this purpose (wage taxation dipshit!)

http://www.oecd.org/document/57/0,3343,en_2649_201185_40255097_1_1_1_1,00.html

 

if you care.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

since consumption isn't mandatory consumption taxs shouldn't be included for this purpose (wage taxation dipshit!)

http://www.oecd.org/document/57/0,3343,en_2649_201185_40255097_1_1_1_1,00.html

 

if you care.

 

consumption isn't mandatory? you're the dipshit.

[ClimbingPanther]

Hey look! You found another way Canada & the US are the same!

[jon]

There is something wrong with that graph, I don't think they are including Provincial tax. Moving from WA to BC would result in about a 9% increase in income tax for someone with a median salary. The sales tax is also 14% compared to 9% down here. Not sure about property taxes.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

There is something wrong with that graph, I don't think they are including Provincial tax. Moving from WA to BC would result in about a 9% increase in income tax for someone with a median salary. The sales tax is also 14% compared to 9% down here. Not sure about property taxes.

 

Don't bother us with the facts! Especially Hugh Conway!

 

[olyclimber]

nice jon. r u going to join the blunt bros. club?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

nice jon. r u going to join the blunt bros. club?

 

and of course corporate taxes... why those tax rich people and things. a company is a thing, right? those taxes don't affect wages and cost of goods. nope. let's tax corporations at 100% hell yeah!

 

 

[Hugh Conway]

There is something wrong with that graph, I don't think they are including Provincial tax. Moving from WA to BC would result in about a 9% increase in income tax for someone with a median salary. The sales tax is also 14% compared to 9% down here. Not sure about property taxes.

 

Don't bother us with the facts! Especially Hugh Conway!

 

You only like facts when they are wrong, eh? Provincial tax rates:

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tax/individuals/faq/taxrates-e.html

 

Moving from WA to California would increase your local taxes. Moving from WA to New York City doubly so because you'd then have State income tax as well as a City income tax.

[olyclimber]

There is something wrong with that graph, I don't think they are including Provincial tax. Moving from WA to BC would result in about a 9% increase in income tax for someone with a median salary. The sales tax is also 14% compared to 9% down here. Not sure about property taxes.

 

Don't bother us with the facts! Especially Hugh Conway!

 

You only like facts when they are wrong, eh? Provincial tax rates:

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tax/individuals/faq/taxrates-e.html

 

Moving from WA to California would increase your local taxes. Moving from WA to New York City doubly so because you'd then have State income tax as well as a City income tax.

 

yes, but those are communist countries.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

There is something wrong with that graph, I don't think they are including Provincial tax. Moving from WA to BC would result in about a 9% increase in income tax for someone with a median salary. The sales tax is also 14% compared to 9% down here. Not sure about property taxes.

 

Don't bother us with the facts! Especially Hugh Conway!

 

You only like facts when they are wrong, eh? Provincial tax rates:

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tax/individuals/faq/taxrates-e.html

 

Moving from WA to California would increase your local taxes. Moving from WA to New York City doubly so because you'd then have State income tax as well as a City income tax.

 

the point is the chart is incomplete. it factors in two kinds of tax. you have to include everything to get a complete picture of taxation.

 

[archenemy]

nice jon. r u going to join the blunt bros. club?

 

and of course corporate taxes... why those tax rich people and things. a company is a thing, right? those taxes don't affect wages and cost of goods. nope. let's tax corporations at 100% hell yeah!

 

A corporation actually has the legal designation of an "entity".

[olyclimber]

corporations are people too! what about their rights?

[archenemy]

They have rather extensive rights.

 

Book suggestion:

"When Corporations Rule the World"

a great history up to present on the formation and power of the corp. Just happens to be written by a dude who lives on Bainbridge and does talks occasionally. Really important reading.

[olyclimber]

i was hoping you'd pick on the first sentence rather than the last.

[Hugh Conway]

the point is the chart is incomplete. it factors in two kinds of tax. you have to include everything to get a complete picture of taxation.

 

shouldn't you then include the services received?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

the point is the chart is incomplete. it factors in two kinds of tax. you have to include everything to get a complete picture of taxation.

 

shouldn't you then include the services received?

 

certainly.

[JayB]

OECD-30, total taxation revenue as a proportion of GDP, 2003

Table 3.1: Ranking of OECD countries in descending level of tax burden(a)

Selected years, 1965-2003

 

ECD-30, total taxation revenue as a proportion of GDP, 2003

 

http://comparativetaxation.treasury.gov.au/content/report/html/05_Chapter_3.asp

[archenemy]

We are OCD to be sure.

[tvashtarkatena]

What is also missing is the extent to which a government is unsustainably undertaxing; i.e. paying with debt rather than tax revenues. Such an analysis would move the U.S. into a less favorable position relative to other nations.

[JayB]

 

Net financial liabilities as percentage of GDP.

 

"Tax burdens are difficult to compare internationally, even at the highest level of aggregation — total taxation revenue as a proportion of GDP. One area that causes particular difficulty is the inter-temporal dimension of the tax burden, or public finance more generally.

 

* Countries may choose to have lower tax burdens in the short run, without reducing their levels of expenditure, if they are willing to run budget deficits and accumulate government debt (or conversely, by reducing their holdings of assets).

 

* Countries with relatively large levels of government debt may need to have a higher tax burden in the future, or reduce expenditures relative to revenues, in order to finance that stock of debt or repay it. Periods of strong economic growth can also help to improve the fiscal position.

 

* Large fiscal imbalances or large levels of debt may not be sustainable for long periods, and choices may need to be made to reduce expenditures or increase revenues."

 

Source same as above.