DariusLikewise posted:

https://twitter.com/Brent_Neill/status/1196241729797722112?s=20

lol

Arivia posted:

yeah the winnipeg budget situation is loving ghastly

they're talking about shutting down libraries to give the cops more money

also no raising taxes ever obviously

DariusLikewise posted:

they want to cap property tax increases to 2.33% a year so the mayor and city council can have a circle jerk over this graphic year over year

infernal machines posted:

how do y'all have lower taxes than us? our taxes don't pay for poo poo and we've been on austerity footing for almost a decade

James Baud posted:

So I've been putzing around with effective marginal tax rates again a bit today because I pay way too much tax and am sad about how inevitable even higher taxes are in the future (so some more fact-based "too much tax" propaganda is necessary). Need to make charts but .

It turns out that if you have 3-4 kids, you start "paying" around 50% right from around 31k income to the sky. There's a little fluctuation where it's lower between 67k and 85k income and higher from 150k to CCB phaseout (varies by kid count and ages) but not enough to make saying 50% absurd.

(And that's before a single means tested provincial program is involved, back when the NDP first introduced it, I posted about how two kids in subsidized daycare in BC result in a 100% effective marginal rate for two different large stretches under 100k, including the entirety of ~60-90k household income.)

James Baud posted:

Short version that skips the preamble.

1) Base marginal rates:

79,353 - 91,107 = 31.00%
91,107 - 93,208 = 32.79%
93,208 - 110,630 = 38.29%
110,630 - 144,489 = 40.70%
- https://www.taxtips.ca/taxrates/bc.htm

2) 23% to 35% *per child*

Refer to table at bottom of:
- http://bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2018/bfp/2018_Budget_and_Fiscal_Plan.pdf#page=64

page=13 for "introducing a new affordable child care benefit that will reduce the cost of care for families. A family could benefit by up to $1,250 per month for every child."

3) Canada Child Benefit clawback at over 65,000 income:
1 child: 3.2%
2 children: 5.7%
3 children: 8.0%
4+ children: 9.5%

- https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-ag...e-your-ccb.html

Couple scenarios, not at all cherrypicked to be especially absurd:

Income of 84k and two kids, 1 and 4?
Your effective marginal rate is 31% + 28-35% + 23% + 5.7% = 87.7% to 94.7%

So, income of 94k and three kids, ages 1, 3, 5?
Your effective marginal rate until 111k is 38.29% + 28-35% + 23% + 23% + 8% = 120.29 to 127.29%

A roughly equivalent version applies between 45 and 60k income, too. (Smaller loss of provincial benefit, bigger loss in federal CCB)


I was contemplating making a webpage with an effective marginal rate calculator and posting it on Reddit but time constraints thus far.

Pinterest Mom posted:

Yeah, this checks out, but I guess I'm not super concerned about it

-You're using family income cutoffs but personal marginal tax rates, so these calculations strictly only apply to single earner families. Allowing for two earners drops the effective marginal rate by about 10% in each case, which still isn't great, but does help a bit. Any RRSP contributions families make which drop them in a lower bracket helps even more.

-Inasmuch as decisions wrt work are taken in "chunks", and not merely at the margin, the marginal tax rate doesn't matter that much - you might be looking at a parent deciding between staying at home and taking care of the kids, or working 20 hours a week and earning ~15k over the year. That'd be a clawback (under the two kids, 1 and 4, single earner 84k scenario) of about 9k, but you only pay income tax on the last 4k of that income (~800$), the family is overall ~5k better off. If you use the added income to give the higher-income partner more room to contribute to RRSP, you get to keep even more money. A 50-67% average tax rate isn't *fantastic*, but it's a lot better than ~100%.

-These tax credits aren't life-long, and your kids age out of them pretty quickly. You might be a single earner that gets a 10k promotion and actually be made 3k worse off this year under your second scenario, but you get to keep that 10k raise next year when the oldest child has aged out of the benefit, and the year after that, and so on.

These families are still better off under the policy than they would be otherwise, and where there are weird edge cases, I think they'll happen to people who are able to get good enough tax advice to mitigate/weather them. Designing this kind of benefit always involves a tradeoff between size of benefit, clawback rate, and length of clawback (which also costs more money), and I don't think the government made an unreasonable choice here.

DariusLikewise posted:

lol 50%-100% marginal rate, gently caress off

apatheticman posted:

Seems like some NYT "After I spend my money I got no money left" math.

Postess with the Mostest posted:

The government isn't the bad guy, it's the kids.

Arivia posted:

yeah the winnipeg budget situation is loving ghastly

they're talking about shutting down libraries to give the cops more money

also no raising taxes ever obviously

Arivia posted:

DariusLikewise posted:

they want to cap property tax increases to 2.33% a year so the mayor and city council can have a circle jerk over this graphic year over year

Helsing posted:

That is awful and I am very sorry to hear that.

The information in this post might be enough for some shithead to track down your twitter handle though so unless you're comfortable with that you might want to edit your post.

infernal machines posted:

how do y'all have lower taxes than us? our taxes don't pay for poo poo and we've been on austerity footing for almost a decade

DariusLikewise posted:

i feel like the survey asked people their top two only