• The TUGBBS forums are completely free and open to the public and exist as the absolute best place for owners to get help and advice about their timeshares for more than 26 years!

    Join tens of thousands of other owners just like you here to get any and all Timeshare questions answered!
  • TUG has now saved timeshare owners more than $14,000,000 dollars just by finding us in time to rescind a new Timeshare purchase! A truly incredible milestone!

    Read more here: TUG saves owners more than $14 Million dollars
  • Follow the TUG Member Banner as it travels the world on vacation with Timeshare owners! Also sign up to get the banner sent to you so you can submit a photo of your vacation with the banner to share with TUG! Banner Thread
  • Sign up to get the TUG Newsletter for free! Join tens of thousands of other owners who get this every week! Latest resort reviews and the most important topics discussed by owners during the week!
  • Our official "end my sales presentation early" T-shirts are available again! Also come with the option for a free membership extension with purchase to offset the cost!

    Read more Here
  • A few of the most common links here on the forums for newbies and guests!

Ontario urges bars, restaurants to close amid COVID-19 pandemic

Maple_Leaf

Tug Review Crew: Rookie
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2009
Messages
781
Reaction score
193
Points
253
Location
Toronto, Ontario
Resorts Owned
Royal Dunes
Ontario says the closure is actually a "sweeping set of voluntary shutdowns," but wait...
De Villa (Toronto Medical Officer of Health) however, went one step further. She told reporters Monday she would order any bars, restaurants and similar establishments still open Tuesday to close immediately and would issue heavy fines to any that defy the ban.
So don't expect bars, night clubs and restaurants to be open in Toronto. And it may be hit-or-miss outside Toronto.
 

Maple_Leaf

Tug Review Crew: Rookie
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2009
Messages
781
Reaction score
193
Points
253
Location
Toronto, Ontario
Resorts Owned
Royal Dunes
OK, the Declaration of Emergency takes care of any uncertainty, at least through March 31.
  • No bars or restaurants open, except for take-out or delivery
  • All theatres and cinemas closed
  • All concert venues closed
  • All organised events over 50 people are forbidden
  • No parades
  • No church services over 50 people
  • No indoor recreational programmes
  • Public libraries are closed
  • All private schools are closed
  • All licensed child-care centres are closed
 

Ironwood

TUG Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
1,003
Reaction score
135
Points
274
Location
North of the 49th!

CanuckTravlr

TUG Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2016
Messages
998
Reaction score
993
Points
154
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Resorts Owned
HGVC Ocean 22
The Canada/US border will be closed to all non essential travel until further notice. Roxham Rd remains open!
Deputy PM Chrystia Freeland announced today that they are setting up isolation facilities to handle any refugees or asylum seekers that come across the border at the informal Roxham Road entry point on the NY/Quebec border. There are already CBSA and RCMP officers at the location, as there have been for the past three years. The same process is being followed for any refugees or asylum seekers showing up at any of the more formal border crossings. No one is getting in without quarantine. Whether they should be let in at all, with the UN now temporarily suspending the asylum and refugee rules, is a separate, more political question.
 

Ironwood

TUG Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
1,003
Reaction score
135
Points
274
Location
North of the 49th!
Announced this morning, The Canada/US border will be closed to all non essential travel at midnight tonight. Efforts will continue to get Canadians currently out of country back home. All irregulars attempting to cross into Canada from Roxham Rd or any other irregular point of entry will be turned back.
 

T-Dot-Traveller

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
2,659
Reaction score
1,448
Points
248
Location
Canada
Resorts Owned
Mayan Palace Regency
Taranova
Sat March 21 / per CP24 -TV news

Ontario waives 3 month enrolment / re-qualification period for OHIP
 

Maple_Leaf

Tug Review Crew: Rookie
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2009
Messages
781
Reaction score
193
Points
253
Location
Toronto, Ontario
Resorts Owned
Royal Dunes
Premier Ford furious at the "bunch of yahoos" protesting outside Queen's Park today.
 

CanuckTravlr

TUG Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2016
Messages
998
Reaction score
993
Points
154
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Resorts Owned
HGVC Ocean 22
Premier Ford furious at the "bunch of yahoos" protesting outside Queen's Park today.
Not sure who organized the protest, but from the photo almost all seem quite young (20s and 30s). If some are actually calling the pandemic a "hoax", then probably from the lower end of the gene pool. Certainly not typical of the bright, well-informed, young people that I am used to working and dealing with. Then again, maybe it's the first time they have ever had to give something up or do without (like a haircut) in their lives, or not be able to do whatever they want, whenever they want! Awwwwww!! :doh: :bawl:
 
Last edited:

T-Dot-Traveller

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
2,659
Reaction score
1,448
Points
248
Location
Canada
Resorts Owned
Mayan Palace Regency
Taranova
In Canada / Ontario - everyone is a “part owner” of OUR healthcare system - (through the taxes we pay.)
I am glad to see our provincial CEO is committed to protecting my investment .

Timeshare analogy :
Canada’s provincial run healthcare is like a timeshare with many owners .
We expect the HOA to use good management and appropriate rules to make sure that the property is in good condition - so that we can use our week in “2021” .

IMO - the protesters are like those who wish to stay in the pool to 3 am while partying and potentially doing damage to the viability of everyone else’s ownership - in the property that is owned by all / not just them .
 
Last edited:

Maple_Leaf

Tug Review Crew: Rookie
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2009
Messages
781
Reaction score
193
Points
253
Location
Toronto, Ontario
Resorts Owned
Royal Dunes

AJCts411

TUG Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
296
Reaction score
134
Points
103
Resorts Owned
Hyatt Sunset x 2
Just saying...per the aticles published numbers thats 0.0015% of the population of Ontario infected. The number of infected are not insignificant but without context meaningless.
 

CanuckTravlr

TUG Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2016
Messages
998
Reaction score
993
Points
154
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Resorts Owned
HGVC Ocean 22
Just saying...per the aticles published numbers thats 0.0015% of the population of Ontario infected. The number of infected are not insignificant but without context meaningless.
Not sure how you are doing your math, nor to which article you are referring? Based on the words you have used, you seem to be trying to calculate what the number of people who have been infected with Covid-19 is, as a percentage of the total population. If you are referring to the article in Maple_Leaf's post, then that is in reference to Ontario. In that case your calculation seems to be off by a multiple of either 10 or 100, depending upon whether you are referring to deaths or infections! Is it possible you have mistaken percentage for fraction?

Let's revisit the numbers. The most recent estimates of Ontario's population are in the range of 14.7 million. Per the article provided by Maple_Leaf, the total people in Ontario infected with Covid-19 to-date are 20,546 and the total deaths are in the range of 1,700, depending upon which of the two death numbers stated you wish to use. So the total deaths to-date represent 0.0156% of Ontario's population. The total infected represent 0.1398% of Ontario's population, not the 0.0015% you calculated!!

While I agree that in any case it is a small percentage of the population, each of those 1,706 "digits" represent someone's relative or friend. One of them is one of mine, so I prefer not to trivialize it, thank you. Those numbers are also much lower than we are seeing in many other jurisdictions outside Canada, particularly when compared to the USA. I think much of the credit for that is due to the relatively early, consistent and coordinated action by all levels of government here, especially compared to the "Keystone Kops" approach we have seen south of the border. And Canadians generally seem to have abided by the regulations.

I want to personally thank everyone involved for both their common-sense guidance and compliance! :clap::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:
 
Last edited:

Tacoma

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
814
Reaction score
154
Points
253
Location
Calgary,Ab, Canada
Totally with you canucktrvlr not to trivialize the deaths. We have been staying home except for walks in our community. One of my 2 adult children that still live with us has gone out of the house only around 3 times since this started the other one does go out for walks. No friends visits, no family visits, trying to shop for groceries as little as possible. Boring yes and economically damaging yes but I believe this too will pass (although it may be longer than I originally thought).

I hope what comes out of this is more money for essential workers over profits (yes I know it will never happen) and proper care for our seniors and handicapped in residences. Your premier (who has done better than I would have predicted) and the BC premier are vocal about keeping the border closed. Time will tell if we'll be able to make that happen. If it wasn't for the meat packing plants we would have done OK in Alberta but we let them get out of control.

Let's hope we can open up slowly enough to keep this virus under control.
Joan
 

DannyTS

TUG Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2018
Messages
2,971
Reaction score
1,128
Points
248
Canada has spent already 130 billion dollars and the amount keeps on rising. Where will we be in September or December? This is just the federal response, I assume the amount is much higher when you add the provincial funds. This comes at the time when the governments have a lot less revenue than before.

The amount will be disproportionately paid back by young people, they just have more years ahead to pay taxes.



 
Last edited:

AJCts411

TUG Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
296
Reaction score
134
Points
103
Resorts Owned
Hyatt Sunset x 2
Not sure how you are doing your math, nor to which article you are referring? Based on the words you have used, you seem to be trying to calculate what the number of people who have been infected with Covid-19 is, as a percentage of the total population. If you are referring to the article in Maple_Leaf's post, then that is in reference to Ontario. In that case your calculation seems to be off by a multiple of either 10 or 100, depending upon whether you are referring to deaths or infections! Is it possible you have mistaken percentage for fraction?

Let's revisit the numbers. The most recent estimates of Ontario's population are in the range of 14.7 million. Per the article provided by Maple_Leaf, the total people in Ontario infected with Covid-19 to-date are 20,546 and the total deaths are in the range of 1,700, depending upon which of the two death numbers stated you wish to use. So the total deaths to-date represent 0.0156% of Ontario's population. The total infected represent 0.1398% of Ontario's population, not the 0.0015% you calculated!!

While I agree that in any case it is a small percentage of the population, each of those 1,706 "digits" represent someone's relative or friend. One of them is one of mine, so I prefer not to trivialize it, thank you. Those numbers are also much lower than we are seeing in many other jurisdictions outside Canada, particularly when compared to the USA. I think much of the credit for that is due to the relatively early, consistent and coordinated action by all levels of government here, especially compared to the "Keystone Kops" approach we have seen south of the border. And Canadians generally seem to have abided by the regulations.

I want to personally thank everyone involved for both their common-sense guidance and compliance! :clap::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:
Misplaced decimal point.... 01.56% 13.6 million...26,000 infected. Not trivializing the deaths, but pointing out that there has been quite a bit of statistics used by politicians and reporters without any context.
When put in context one can decide if the current measures are appropriate or draconian. Personally I find that the majority of people, businesses can and do use common sense, accept reasonable guidance, and use innovation to overcome challenges. And I doubly any amount of reasoning, guidance will help the tiny number "special" people.
 

CanuckTravlr

TUG Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2016
Messages
998
Reaction score
993
Points
154
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Resorts Owned
HGVC Ocean 22
Canada has spent already 130 billion dollars and the amount keeps on rising. Where willl we be in September or December? This is just the federal response, I assume the amount is much higher when you add the provincial money. This comes at the time when the government has a lot less revenue than last year.

The amount will be disproportionately paid back by young people, they just have more years ahead of them to pay tax.

That is a very simplistic view of how the economy and taxes actually work and how the tax structure in this country operates and who actually pays the bulk of income taxes.

That $130 billion does not just disappear forever down some dark hole never to be seen again. It goes into the economy to help keep the money circulating and the economy working, even as much of the population is sequestered at home. Much of it ends up back in federal coffers from income taxes and/or GST/HST being paid by the businesses receiving payments for the rent, mortgage interest, groceries, car payments, phone bills, etc., from individuals who are receiving support payments Many of the support payments are also taxable and are therefore subject to income tax. Also, many people are still being paid by their employers, since they are still working, whether in essential services or from home.

A larger deficit will obviously be created, but most deficits are typically paid down within a maximum of 10 to 15 years, often much faster, as the economy recovers. The massive war deficits after WWII are a good example of this. Much of the deficit will be repaid from future taxes from those businesses that have been helped to survive, as they recover and pay more income taxes going forward. Most "older" people (let's say those over 50) earn proportionately larger incomes than most "young" people and therefore pay much more in income taxes. That is because we have a graduated personal income tax system in this country, so the more you earn, the more you pay generally as a proportion of your income. So don't assume the deficit will be paid off mainly by "young" people.

Even for seniors, most of them will also be around to help pay off the deficit. Average life expectancy for a 65 year old today in Canada is close to 20 years, so most seniors (even those over 65) will be around for most, if not all, of the time needed to pay down the deficit. Many of them also earn more, even retired, than many of those "young" people to whom you refer. So I don't agree with your premise, but that is just the economist in me! It's not the first time that type of complaint has been made. It makes for a great sound bite, but IMO it doesn't hold water.

 

DannyTS

TUG Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2018
Messages
2,971
Reaction score
1,128
Points
248
I am not buying these arguments because there is no indication that the government will increase the taxes significantly anytime soon, it is not politically popular, this will strain people and companies to the point of bankruptcy. From past studies about 70% of Canadians had already lived paycheque to paycheque. It is rational to believe that they will kick the can down the road for as long as they can so this will be shouldered disproportionately by young people. If you know of any liberal immediate plans to increase taxation you let me know.
Also, I agree that some of that money goes back with sales and income taxes but let's not forget that 50% of all the taxpayers in Canada do not pay any income tax. Also, they gave 9 billion dollars to students for example. This is another gem. How much will they pay in income taxes? Virtually nothing. Hopefully the federal government will collect the 5% in GST when the students are going to order their online games or Apple computers!

It is important to note that people compare the situation with what happened after WW2 (including G&M) but we are not starting from the same point.
At the time, the government had to increase the taxes substantially, but it was starting from a much lower level since it was not collecting much from the populatio. As you can see below, the % of revenue from income taxes increased from 10% in 1941 to 25% in 1945. The amount continued to rise relatively slowly at it is now at 50%. Canadians are already being taxed to their eyeballs now.

1589381846741.png



Most importantly, G&M is also forgetting to mention that the provincial debt is much higher than before and that it will burden the same taxpayers. This was not a problem after WW2.
Right now the Federal debt to GDP is at about 90% (before the GDP dropped and the deficit skyrocketed so it will be much higher). The Ontario debt to GDP is about 37% so for a taxpayer from Ontario, the debt to their GDP is 127% since they will have to service both going forward. Canadians often forget to include the provincial debt to GDP for a complete picture but the reality is that the state debt in the US for example is much lower that the provincial debt in Canada, about 3 times lower in average.
I also have to mention that Globe and Mail is discussing about 100 billions in deficit but the new estimate is 250 billions by the end of the year.
 

CanuckTravlr

TUG Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2016
Messages
998
Reaction score
993
Points
154
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Resorts Owned
HGVC Ocean 22
Thank you for at least using some statistics to back up your argument. I still disagree with your hypothesis that the burden will fall mostly on the "young", which was my primary point. Nothing you have said above changes any of that for me. Plus, those "free-loading" students you seem to be referring to are this country's tomorrow. One of the reasons Canada excels internationally as a place to live is due to our above-average levels of education. Those students will eventually be paying income taxes once they start working, so I don't mind giving them a helping hand right now.

A country, like a business, needs to take a longer-term approach. Even personally, many of us carry mortgages on our homes without issue, that are multiples of our annual incomes. Canada's GDP is normally around $2.2 trillion. The 90% figure you quote is total governmental debt for ALL governments, not just the federal government. It also includes accounts payable and does not make any adjustment for government assets supported by that debt. If you exclude current accounts payable that ratio drops to 70%.

A debt-to-GDP ratio for the nation of around 100% of GDP would be concerning. However, even that would be manageable and should not be overly alarming in the middle of a crisis, if you are taking a long-term viewpoint, especially with low interest rates. But we are not there yet. We have one of the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratios federally of any of the G7 countries at about 34%. The figure for Ontario is 37% of provincial GDP. The combined number for Ontario is not 127% of total GDP, but more like 71%.

Yes we will have higher deficits, including provincial deficits, when we come out of this economic recession. After WWII, that also applied; we had provinces even back then!! You noticed I made reference to having to pay off the debts over as much as 10 to 15 years. After WWII, they were running surpluses after TWO years, due to the pent-up demand that resulted in an economic surge. That gives us a lot of extra room in terms of time to pay off any debt following this emergency.

An additional $250 billion is a big number but it is a fraction of our annual GDP. Some of that also produces additional tax revenues, so it is not all accumulative. Finally, you are correct that the personal tax rates were lower 75 years ago. However, universal medicare, EI, OAS, CPP, subsidized child care, university loan programmes and many other items we fund today from government coffers did not exist then. So I am not sure why that is even relevant. In my professional opinion we can manage this, just as we have managed other emergencies in the past.

The alternative is to allow the economy to completely collapse or move to re-opening too soon, and that will cause even more issues in the short-term and also harm any recovery. I think our approach is overall a vastly better one than the relative chaos and band-aid solutions that seem to characterize much of the current approach south of our border. You seem to be critical of our approach, but perhaps you might offer an alternative solution. Criticism is easy, constructive criticism is much more useful.
 
Last edited:

DannyTS

TUG Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2018
Messages
2,971
Reaction score
1,128
Points
248
Thank you for at least using some statistics to back up your argument. I still disagree with your hypothesis that the burden will fall mostly on the "young", which was my primary point. Nothing you have said above changes any of that for me. Plus, those "free-loading" students you seem to be referring to are this country's tomorrow. One of the reasons Canada excels internationally as a place to live is due to our above-average levels of education. Those students will eventually be paying income taxes once they start working, so I don't mind giving them a helping hand right now.

A country, like a business, needs to take a longer-term approach. Even personally, many of us carry mortgages on our homes without issue, that are multiples of our annual incomes. Canada's GDP is normally around $2.2 trillion. The 90% figure you quote is total governmental debt for ALL governments, not just the federal government. It also includes accounts payable and does not make any adjustment for government assets supported by that debt. If you exclude current accounts payable that ratio drops to 70%.

A debt to GDP ratio for the nation of around 100% of GDP would be concerning. However, it is manageable and should not be overly alarming in the middle of a crisis, if you are taking a long-term viewpoint, especially with low interest rates. We have one of the lowest debt to GDP ratios federally of any of the G7 countries at about 37%. Yes we will have higher deficits, including provincial deficits, when we come out of this economic recession. After WWII, that also applied; we had provinces even back then!! You noticed I made reference to having to pay off the debts over as much as 10 to 15 years. After WWII, they were running surpluses after TWO years, due to the pent-up demand that resulted in an economic surge. That gives us a lot of extra room in terms of time to pay off any debt during this emergency.

An additional $230 billion is a big number but it is a fraction of our annual GDP. Some of that also produces additional tax revenues, so it is not all accumulative. Finally, you are correct that the personal tax rates were lower 75 years ago. However, universal medicare, EI, OAS, CPP, subsidized child care, university loan programmes and many other items we fund today from government coffers did not exist then. So I am not sure why that is even relevant. In my professional opinion we can manage this, just as we have managed other emergencies in the past.

The alternative is to allow the economy to completely collapse or move to re-opening too soon, and that will cause even more issues in the short-term and also harm any recovery. I think our approach is overall a vastly better one than the relative chaos and band-aid solutions that seem to characterize much of the current approach south of our border. You seem to be critical of our approach, but perhaps you might offer an alternative solution. Criticism is easy, constructive criticism is much more useful.
I never said "free loading". I would have taken the money if given to me, not their fault. But the government is giving them free money to stay home, not a good way to learn to how "real" life is. Their parents were the country's future at their age, they did not have a 6000 dollars cheque from the government to stay home. There is not evidence that they were in financial difficultly and for sure not all of them. But many of them had summer jobs, now older people at higher risk will have to take those. 1200 a month until September for someone who lives with his parents, eats with his parents is a lot of money. Many families with young kids do not have 1200 of disposable income a month, many families do not have any disposable income but this is what the government gave the students.

It is very relevant that the personal taxes were lower 75 years ago because they could increase the taxation without creating a big problem at the time. I also have to point out, the personal debt is also about 180% of the personal income. 75 years ago it was virtually zero. If you want, I will concede that taking another 250 billion dollars in debt is not a big issue, just about 28,000 CAD for every person of the 9 million actual tax payers.

Read this article, I agree that sooner of later we have to open anyways. Hiding under the bed and accumulating debt is not the solution.

 

CanuckTravlr

TUG Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2016
Messages
998
Reaction score
993
Points
154
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Resorts Owned
HGVC Ocean 22
So I still haven't seen your alternative solution to all of this, unless it is the Swedish model, in which case see my comments at the end! Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree.

First, I never said that you said they were "freeloaders", that is why it is in quotation marks, but it is what you implied by saying they are only spending it on games and such. That is a rather harsh over-generalization IMO. I am a retired senior. I was fortunate enough to be able to get good summer jobs to help pay for my university education. Many students do not have that opportunity today and that was before the lockdown put a kibosh on what types of summer jobs remain! I built my own business from the ground up. Neither my wife nor I have any pension, other than CPP and OAS. I was fortunate to be successful, but if my business failed no one was going to give me a bail out, the way they often do with the large multi-nationals. But I certainly do not resent money going to students to help them get through this in the short-term.

So is your solution to cut all students off? Again, it is easier to criticize than to provide solutions. Many students are in those same families you talk about that don't have any extra disposable income. How does that help them? Some students are single parents or mature students trying to improve their lot in life. They don't live or eat at home with their parents. Many of them go to school in a different city and still have rent or other obligations that didn't stop just because they closed the schools. No different than working people who still have rent or mortgage obligations, but are now laid off. Why single out young people?

We have never faced this type of emergency before. I think the powers-that-be have overall done a pretty good job, given that everyone is in uncharted territory. Even in WWII everyone was still working and businesses were mostly still operating. And to compare the tax rate to those in 1945 is completing unhelpful. What benefits are you prepared to give up to go back to those rates, so we have "more room to maneuver"? Should it be your health coverage, your government pension, public transit, any subsidies you are eligible for under EI or the emergency authorizations? Let me know. Again you seem to make the common mistake that these payments disappear into some deep, dark hole never to be seen again. That is a very simplistic economic model and bears no relationship to what actually happens. You seem to conveniently ignore that almost all of those payments go back into the economy and ultimately a good portion of it comes back into government coffers, rather than just increasing the debt.

Finally, your $28,000 number is not only misleading, but inaccurate. However, it does make for a good "sound bite". Even if it was accurate, no one is suggesting it needs to be paid off right away in a lump sum! Also, there are not just 9 million taxpayers and they do not contribute equally in any case. I have no idea where you got the 9 million figure. There are over 28 million individual tax returns filed with CRA every year. That is just the T1 individual returns. There are also T2 corporate returns and T3 trust returns. On top of that almost 35% of federal revenues come from things like GST, excise and payroll taxes. So your figure of $28,000 per taxpayer is completely overblown. In any case, an individual with $20,000 of taxable income will pay a much lower amount than someone making $200,000 per year, let alone $2,000,000 per year. If we are going to debate this let's keep it realistic and reasonable!


And the Swedish model has its own pitfalls, issues and shortcomings. It has calculated trade-offs, like any other response to the pandemic. It is just a different approach. Having spent time in Sweden, I understand why as a society it has worked fairly well for them, but I am reasonably certain it would not have worked well here, IMO. I know it has been trotted out ad nauseum by some pundits, because it seems to support their agenda. When I have explored other commentaries, it does not appear to be the panacea many have claimed, when subjected to more in-depth critical analysis and comparison.
 
Last edited:

DannyTS

TUG Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2018
Messages
2,971
Reaction score
1,128
Points
248

CanuckTravlr

TUG Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2016
Messages
998
Reaction score
993
Points
154
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Resorts Owned
HGVC Ocean 22
I think this is self-explanatory. I stand by what I said, the 250 billion dollars will be paid back by relatively few people and the final bill may be much higher.

This is my final commentary. I really don't understand what the point is that you are trying to make, since you seem to keep changing it. Initially you were concerned that young people would pay a disproportionate amount of the new $130 billion in debt. Then you said there were only 9.0 million taxpayers who would each have to pay $28,000 to cover it, and now you are saying relatively few (whatever that means?) people will have to pay back a $250 billion debt.

You have yet to provide any constructive alternative and have failed to answer most of the questions that I raised. How did you come to the conclusion from that chart that the $250 billion in debt would be paid back by relatively few people? That is also not what you initially said. You said, and I quote, "another 250 billion dollars in debt is not a big issue, just about 28,000 CAD for every person of the 9 million actual tax payers." My concept of "few" is less than 9 million!

Your most recent chart shows that the top four groups representing about 32% of individual taxpayers (which I assume is where your 9.0 million comes from) pay about 87% of the income taxes paid by individuals. But individual taxpayers only provide about 53% of federal revenues. So those 9 million individual taxpayers in the top four income groups would normally cover about 46% (87% of 53%) of that $250 billion in debt, or about $115 billion. That is an overall average of about $12,800 per taxpayer in the top four groups, not $28,000.

I already made the point that the more you earn, the higher proportion of taxes you pay. No surprise there to anyone familiar with how the Income Tax Act works. More than half of that tax burden will be borne by those with taxable income in excess of $100,000, and the largest proportion by those with taxable income in excess of $250,000 per annum. Amortized over 5 or 10 years, it amounts to a tax increase of as little as 1% or 2% per individual taxpayer. I think that is quite manageable and not really an impediment when compared to saving lives. Your opinion may be different and on that basis we may just have to disagree.
 

dioxide45

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
29,031
Reaction score
3,513
Points
699
Location
NE Florida
Resorts Owned
Marriott's Grande Vista
Marriott's Harbour Lake
SVV - Bella
SVV - Key West
It looks like a Burlington Ontario 30 year icon is gone.

It is with a heavy heart that we announce the closing of our doors. Circumstances have prevailed and we cannot move forward.

The last 30 years have been truly the best. So many memories, friendships and occasions to be celebrated, too many to count. We sincerely appreciate that you have celebrated all of these moments with us. We feel we have been a part of your families and are so thankful for your patronage over the years.

We have employed so many amazing young people over the years and have enjoyed watching them grow into adults and leaders. We were just getting to know the second generation of those same people. We will miss them dearly.

While we may not gather in this building again, we will gather as friends again soon.
We will miss you all and will #cuattheporch forever in our hearts.
CK



Sure to be one of many...

This is also a warning to not trust any ole GoFundMe that is set up. It seems that several were set up in the name of this restaurant by people not affiliated in any way with the restaurant. There are always despicable people out there trying to scam others.
 

DannyTS

TUG Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2018
Messages
2,971
Reaction score
1,128
Points
248
I think this is self-explanatory. I stand by what I said, the 250 billion dollars will be paid back by relatively few people and the final bill may be much higher.

View attachment 20599

I thought the chart was obvious.
68.4% or 18.8 of the 27.5 million taxpayers pay very little of the budged or 13.2%.
8.7 million taxpayers pay for 86.8%. You can bet your house that any future tax increases will be almost exclusively on the same 8.7 million taxpayers, not on the lower income folks.
In my book, 8.7 millions out of a population of 37 millions is few people but if you prefer I will rephrase: the 250 billion dollars will have to be paid back by a minority of taxpayers ( approx 9 million people)
 
Top