Jack Fisher
This article from the Financial Post doesn’t really seem to have a point except that it seems to think taxes are wrong?
Don’t read this article: Posthaste: Canada’s top 10% of earners pay 54% of taxes — but here’s the kicker, many are just middle-class
Or do, it might help understand what I’m going to say next…
Headline: “Canada’s top 10% of earners pay 54% of taxes — but here’s the kicker, many are just middle-class”
It says that the top 10% of earners include households making over $96,000 a year and that those people aren’t “wealthy” but… wait. If that’s the average and Canadians who earn over an average of $96,000 only start to make up the top 10% wealthiest parts of the population… how do those numbers break down?
This article is uncritical of its own narrative and implies that 90% of the country makes less than $96,000 and that them paying fewer taxes is… bad?
But after only a couple short paragraphs it jumps to the struggles of the oil and gas industry????
This article isn’t worth reading, but I’m sharing it for, idk, posterity? I find it’s bizarrely written and has no real point other than the veiled implication that taxes are bad for the middle-class, even though it notes that it’s only talking about the top 10% of earners and doesn’t break down how those earners are split up or if the 1% of earners are being charged more than the 10th percentile and so make up a larger portion of the suggested 54% taxation (without any validating) it claims the “unwealthy” are paying.
BIZZARE.
… Curious how this is written.
Like… listen…
This is the first sentence: “The top 10% of Canada’s earners make 34% of the country’s income, but are paying 54% of income taxes, says a new essay that questions the premise that the “rich” don’t pay enough tax.” YEAH! NO DUH!
I did not add the quotation around “rich” the article does. Those quotes mean something. They denote criticism, but (((why)))?/?
If 10% of the population is making 34% of the money, you’ve already got a discrepancy. Graphs would help, but whatever. IF they pay 54% of the tax of the country, that’s because we have a (partially) fair system of payment. Honestly, those people will probably still make more money than the average Canadian every year. It would, of course, help if we could see the breakdown of wage earners in the top 10%, and also the breakdown of wage earners elsewhere to see what portion of their income is taxed, but the broad specifications are unclear.
(the study linked from the Fraser Institute isn’t actually helpful, because it only compares relative numbers for the lowest earners in the top 10% of earners in Canada, and does not compare those number to the context of the other NINETY PERCENT OF PEOPLE IN THE COUNTRY – THE VAST MAJORITY)
Anyway. the Fraser study seems to downplay how much the top of the top percent earn by only measuring the “bottom threshold” for the 10th percentile. Which is silly, because, like, what does that mean? Does that mean we should average out the other 90% of people and assume they’re all making half-way between $0 and $96,000 a year? No.
In the last two sentences in the article from The Post here it says:
“Being in the top 10% of earners in Canada doesn’t mean you are wealthy. In fact, in 2017, any Canadian making $96,000 (or more) was in that group, Cross says. [JF – discrepancy pointed out above, the study is unclear and uncritical]
“Many Canadians, including those advocating for higher taxes, might be surprised to learn what our top 10 percent of income-earners look like — many of them consider themselves middle class,” Cross said.”
If they consider themselves middle class, ok cool. It’s possible that some are (look at rent and house-price in Toronto and the GTA). Plus, like, maybe 5% of the top 10% ARE middle class. There’s obviously a wide gap we’re not being shown, and that gap may be the difference between $100,000 and $1,000,000. But we don’t know because what is even the point of this as an article? Total trash garbage that challenges nothing except preconceived notions of anti-tax sentiment.
I’ll change my perspective with numbers, maybe. But what I’m seeing is just, like, pretty okay.
And I just… OK Boomer.
[I’ve been screenshoting National Post headlines recently and many of them are like this. They say something, share a fact that only supports an unspoken point, and then end.]
