|
.
James Baud fucked around with this message at 12:21 on Aug 26, 2018 |
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 09:55 |
|
|
PittTheElder posted:This argument is literally "I am spending $3,600/mo on candles, why can't I balance my budget". It is when you need a luxury car, atv, skidoo, and a cottage. Check your priv
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
James Baud posted:Oh yeah, interest exists. I forgot. I bet your a cga
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:This argument is literally "I am spending $3,600/mo on candles, why can't I balance my budget". High student debt, low income? Veterinarians High training opportunity cost, low income? PhDs
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
namaste faggots posted:I bet your a cga ACTUALLY its a CPA now Postess with the Mostest posted:Doctors are right to be pissed. The provinces gave them the power to incorporate in lieu of fee increases. It wasn't a loophole for them, it's encouraged. Morneau is right though, that's a silly way to calculate compensation but just yanking the rug out without any considerations for that seems harsh. On the plus side, it's psychologically terrible to have something taken away so the doctors will be pissed for a while and I always get a kick out of that. A provincial decision that cost the Federal government revenue, gotta rip the band-aid off at some point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
.
James Baud fucked around with this message at 12:21 on Aug 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
James Baud posted:15% flat credit on tuition paid, the other 85 and the amount that went to living expenses for the extra few years is all on you. Queue loving queue
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
If we are serious about redistributing income downward then people in the professional classes are necessarily going to lose some of their income. That has to be a feature of any decent taxation scheme, not a bug. Unless you want to start hypothesizing about a massive increase in growth rates then the only way to truly raise the living standards of the 90% or so of income earners who have been treading water is to reduce the income going to the other 10%. You can soften the blow by letting those 10 percenters participate in the same expanded government programs as everyone else. James Baud posted:Eh, make it fairer by taxing household income for everyone, not just the incorporated and you remove all the otherwise unnecessary tax planning complexity from a lot of people's situations and benefit those who don't make enough to have that kind of advice. If we want to be egalitarian then we need to abandon our governments wasteful and inefficient obsession with using tax credits instead of direct spending. Directly providing services that are too individually expensive - better transport options, more extensive healthcare coverage, educational and afterschool programs for kids, cheaper telecommunications, pharmacare, etc. - are a vastly superior option to more tax credits. And somebody has to pay for that expansion and it's reasonable we ask the 10% or so of top income earners to shoulder a part of the burden that is commensurate to the gains they have made in the last few decades. The big shift away from universal re-distributive social programs and their replacement with all kinds of byzantine tax credits and shelters is just a way of enabling baby boomer fantasies of independence. Each of these credits is a way of rewarding or punishing certain groups and redistributing income so we might as well do it in an efficient and transparent manner. Ending our reliance on tax credits as a substitute for a lot of direct spending will have the added bonus of bringing our collective dependence on government back into clear focus.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:Literally every listed hardship is experienced by some other group of Canadians who make the median income. Agreed. This idea that only MDs spent a whole lot of time honing skills and knowledge is alive and well in the government where medical officers get the cushy salaries and additional vacation weeks whereas scientists start their careers at comparatively low wages (barely above admin jobs) and 3 weeks vacation. PIPSC is a useless union and Canadians sadly don't care about science as much as bridge tolls or sex ed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
Also assuming med school debt is anything like regular student debt, Canadian tax law already allows a huge tax break to help you pay it back, in that you can write off the cost of your education once you're making income. For me that meant by the end of my MA I had something like $30-40k banked with the CRA because that's how much the total tuition of my BA and MA added up to, minus income I had been making during school that I had been writing off as I went. The first year I had a real job and made a significant income, I used the tuition credits I had banked to write off my entire annual income, meaning my income came out to zero dollars and I got a huge tax return because the deductions off my paycheque for the year was several thousand dollars, all of which I got back. Just for having been a student, not even for having debt, since I had already paid off my student loans. If you had a couple hundred grand in student debt, that means you were paying a couple hundred grand in tuition which means the CRA will let you write off years of income (assuming the stories about residents not getting paid much are true) and work tax-free until you've made income equivalent to the cost of your school tuition. And if you're more ambitious than I was and expect to be making a six-figure salary within a few years like most doctors, you could keep banking your tuition credits until you can use them to pay off higher-tax-bracket marginal income each year, saving you even more. Somehow this isn't enough for doctors and their high tuition fees. I'm with Helsing, raising taxes on upper-middle-class and lower-upper-class professionals and managers is a feature, not a bug. Under a better government that money would be being reinvested in programs and infrastructure that those people would also benefit from, but this is the Liberals so they'll probably be spent on boutique tax credits for hockey gear and selfie sticks instead.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
Albino Squirrel, how badly will Morneau poop on your GP practice? Your marginal rate is going to the moon
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Also assuming med school debt is anything like regular student debt, Canadian tax law already allows a huge tax break to help you pay it back, in that you can write off the cost of your education once you're making income. For me that meant by the end of my MA I had something like $30-40k banked with the CRA because that's how much the total tuition of my BA and MA added up to, minus income I had been making during school that I had been writing off as I went. The first year I had a real job and made a significant income, I used the tuition credits I had banked to write off my entire annual income, meaning my income came out to zero dollars and I got a huge tax return because the deductions off my paycheque for the year was several thousand dollars, all of which I got back. Just for having been a student, not even for having debt, since I had already paid off my student loans. Thought they got rid of tuition tax credits. I had a ton though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:Thought they got rid of tuition tax credits. Mine carried forward until last year. I graduated 8 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:Thought they got rid of tuition tax credits. Yeah I think they got rid of them this year, dunno what happens to the remaining carried over. Still any established doctors currently complaining about their student loan debt will have had a chance to make use of it so
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
namaste faggots posted:http://bc.ctvnews.ca/sturgeon-in-tsawwassen-mills-store-aquarium-euthanized-1.3126290 that mall is a loving joke
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AJWVictoriaBC/status/905581019490729984 holy poo poo this loving list is insane quote:65 policy ideas 1-4: waste tens of billions of loving dollars on bullshit we don't need 5: its those drat unions fault we're out of money! quote:Economy yep just round em all up and put em in residential sch- i mean treatment programs, this is both legal and effective and definitely not going to have any adverse societal consequences. also make sure to farm it out to the ~private sector~ quote:Health care this is not some hilarious satire of BC libs btw, this is what they actually believe quote:Homelessness Urban housing crisis? Just force those poors even further out. Simple! Powell River needs more young people anyway quote:Agriculture you know what BC needs? our very own Rushmore. It'll create jobs! also poors just need to bootstrap their way into legal representation, I'm sick of paying for free stuff 
Juul-Whip fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Sep 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
That list just kept on going. That's amazing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
Remember this rear end in a top hat was telling people they don't deserve to live in Vancouver if they're poor and should move to chilliwack
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 19:33
|
|
|
lol gently caress BC
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 19:33
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/pierrepoilievre/status/905810002639716355 lol this motherfucker
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
quote:2. Shape a mountain to create a globally-significant sculpture funded by the sale of stone removed, and use some of it to build public structures across BC that will last for 500 years. what the gently caress does this even mean and also how much does this man think people will pay for stone???
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
quote:1. While continuing to fully fund K-12 education, increase support for independent schools to provide more choice for parents, and greater competition for our public system. In what hosed up bizarro world is even remotely a desirable goal? Libertarians are the absolute worst.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:you could keep banking your tuition credits until you can use them to pay off higher-tax-bracket marginal income each year, saving you even more. Tuition credits are only worth 15% (or whatever the lowest tax bracket happens to be in the future) of their 'face value' in reducing taxes paid, regardless of your tax bracket. Risky Bisquick posted:Make a graph of their lifetime after tax earnings, plot it against some other career. Let me know In fairness doctors have a really lovely income progression relative to just about every other profession. Huge debt/awful hours throughout your 20s, hopefully climb out of debt by your mid 30s (when you promptly decide to have kids/buy a house, plunging you back into debt), good-to-great money afterwards as long as you don't set money on fire trying to keep up with the Joneses. If you're lucky you break even with other successful professionals in your late 40s/early 50s and everything after that is gravy. The overall money is good but the 'utility' is significantly less so. blah_blah fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Sep 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
THC posted:https://twitter.com/AJWVictoriaBC/status/905581019490729984 Lmao I can't see them ever winning an election with this poo poo as a platform
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
blah_blah posted:Tuition credits are only worth 15% (or whatever the lowest tax bracket happens to be in the future) of their 'face value' in reducing taxes paid, regardless of your tax bracket. Please quantify what you consider huge debt. In Canadian programs you get very agreeable LoC's from Canadian banks where you write the interest off. First it was Trudeau with middle class 50-200k, now people are saying 175k gross salary (GP from that article and not a hospital specialist) is not in the good money territory.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
.
James Baud fucked around with this message at 12:21 on Aug 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
James Baud posted:The utility of 175k is overstated. You pay twice as much total tax on 175k (40k+) as you do 130k (20k) because you've run out of credits and the marginal rates are high. Which is meaningless, your take home is still higher. Do you turn down raises or overtime because of the effects of progressive taxation?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
Risky Bisquick posted:Which is meaningless, your take home is still higher. Honestly, these conversations would probably be more coherent if people just talked about net income.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
.
James Baud fucked around with this message at 12:18 on Aug 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
Insufficient doctor access is because of the professional associations that govern the intake numbers for doctors, not the fee schedules or their choice to work less hours. e: let me explain it in simpler terms, this is the taxi medallion problem but with doctors Subjunctive posted:Honestly, these conversations would probably be more coherent if people just talked about net income. But you would leave out individual situations afforded by our convoluted tax code. My incorporated net income was significantly higher than my current employee net income due to deductions like home-use or depreciated capital costs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
i like his idea for a freeway from pemberton to harrison lake. lots of people in pemberton like to go to lakes
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
James Baud posted:The utility of 175k is overstated. You pay twice as much total tax on 175k (40k+) as you do 130k (20k) because you've run out of credits and the marginal rates are high. Oh noooo, only $135k after tax income, however do they survive? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
.
James Baud fucked around with this message at 12:18 on Aug 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
Risky Bisquick posted:Insufficient doctor access is because of the professional associations that govern the intake numbers for doctors, not the fee schedules or their choice to work less hours. open up canadian residencies to non canadians. they're more likely to stay and practice in canada
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
Risky Bisquick posted:Insufficient doctor access is because of the professional associations that govern the intake numbers for doctors, not the fee schedules or their choice to work less hours. "No actually insufficient doctor access is because of increasing numbers of female doctors who don't want to work the long hours that men used to so you have these frigging women splitting practices and taking up med school spots and 3 graduate but you only get one doctor" - Ikantski's mom.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
James Baud posted:Sure, that's true enough, but it's not very likely we'll go for the Cuba doctor solution, which more recently includes banning them all from ever leaving the country for fear they won't come back. lmao
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:what the gently caress does this even mean It means you'll get to wake up every day to watch the sun rise over a 500m bust of Christy Clark smirking down at Vancouver.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
.
James Baud fucked around with this message at 12:18 on Aug 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 09:55 |
|
|
James Baud posted:Since we're talking about it anyway, by some coincidence a CPA just called me up and spent half an hour bitching about "tax policy changes proposed by left wing academics who have no idea how small businesses actually work in practice" and bemoaning the consultation process being 75 days, mostly in summer, when the last time changes like this happened, consultation was four years. How did these people survive without income splitting before 2015?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 22:12
|
|