Page 2 of 13

### Re: Clippings 2012

Posted: 11 Jan 2012 14:06
Norbert Schlenker wrote:The taxtips.ca calculator, for example, says the rentier realizing \$50k in capital gains and \$40k in Canadian dividends pays only about 5% of it in personal federal income tax. That might just stick in the craw of the poor schlub who grosses \$20k/year, pays more than 5% of it in income tax, and then ponies up for CPP and EI too.
So, would they be right, or wrong, to not include the taxes paid by the corporation when making this argument?

### Re: Clippings 2012

Posted: 11 Jan 2012 14:08
Bylo Selhi wrote:
ghariton wrote:Boy, I must be on a lot of people's ignore list.
Another possibility:

Bylo's theorem of posting: Let the number of posts between a reply and the post to which it refers be n. Let the probability that the poster read and comprehended the post to which they replied be p.

Theorem: p = 1/(n+1)²

Proof: left as an exercise for the (non)reader

(And yes, I plead guilty as charged.)
The proof is clearly wrong because it fails to account for not understanding the n=0 n=-1 post.

### Re: Clippings 2012

Posted: 11 Jan 2012 14:19
I get 32% (34% in 2009) of taxfilers paid no income tax.

Anyway the article was about tax expenditures.
http://www.fin.gc.ca/taxexp-depfisc/201 ... g.asp#toc6

newguy

### Re: Clippings 2012

Posted: 11 Jan 2012 16:49
I re-did my spreadsheet with the final numbers in case they were different from the interim ones.

Read the notes tab for details.

It about 1.3 megabytes so careful if you're not interested and on dialup from mars.

Too big so I only included tabs for non-taxable returns dollar amounts and the same per person.

PM me if you want the whole file, essentially the same data from the cra but in a not totally stupid spreadsheet format. It may be in a newguy weird format.

newguy

### Re: Clippings 2012

Posted: 11 Jan 2012 18:10
Do people who have incorporated pay personal tax? It seems to me that a lot of Doctors and Lawyers set up personal corporations. Maybe for liability or tax?

### Re: Clippings 2012

Posted: 11 Jan 2012 18:55
Speaking for MD's, they incorporate to save tax. There is no liability protection provided by earning your income through a CCPC.

Ultimately, the owner of the CCPC still pays the same amount of personal tax once it is withdrawn as if they earned it directly*. In very general terms, the corporate tax + taxes due upon withdrawal of funds from the CCPC = the tax rate on the income if earned personally. It's far more complicated than that, but CRA aims for that general concept also referred to as "integration".

The tax savings of incorporating come from the deferral of paying the full personal tax, a deferral which can span decades.

*Assuming identical tax rates at the time of earned income to the time it is withdrawn from the CCPC.

### Re: Clippings 2012

Posted: 12 Jan 2012 19:05
From a Financial Times review of a new book on hedge funds:
According to Mr Lack, the hedge fund industry lost more money in that one year [i.e. 2008] than all the profits it had generated during the previous 10 years. In fact most likely, he says, is that hedge funds lost more money for their investors in 2008 than the industry had made in its entire history. If true, that would put the industry up there with airlines and banks in the annals of long-term, non-productive performers from an investor perspective.

Not that the managers have suffered the same way, of course. That is the brilliance of the hedge fund model. Between 1998 and 2010, the book shows, even on favourable assumptions hedge fund managers earned an estimated \$379bn in fees, out of total investment gains (before fees) of \$449bn. In other words, they took 84 per cent of the investment profits their funds made, leaving just 16 per cent for the investors.

Once you make adjustments for survivorship bias, fund of funds fees and so on, it is probable, he suggests, that hedge fund managers have kept all the money made, and investors have in aggregate received nothing.
George

### Re: Clippings 2012

Posted: 12 Jan 2012 19:08
Norbert Schlenker wrote:The taxtips.ca calculator, for example, says the rentier realizing \$50k in capital gains and \$40k in Canadian dividends pays only about 5% of it in personal federal income tax.
That was the kind of fear I tried to express by saying the dividend tax credit would be an easy target for being cut. Even though the credit is "fair" because its role is to prevent double taxation of coporate profits, it essentially benefits the "rich", as I have yet to see a minimum-wage worker able to amass a big portfolio of dividend-paying stocks.

Hence I would be very interested to know what fraction of the zero-income-tax crowd do so because of this particular tax credit.

### Re: Clippings 2012

Posted: 12 Jan 2012 19:38
EmperorCoder wrote:Hence I would be very interested to know what fraction of the zero-income-tax crowd do so because of this particular tax credit.
People who paid no tax had 2.16 billion dollars in taxable amount of dividends. That is 5 % of all dividend income claimed by all taxpayers. (Wow 46 billion dollars in total txbl dividends, good job Canada.)

Here is a graph that shows the average amount per taxfiler in each income category. eg. The average taxfiler who paid no tax and earned 70-80k had 21k in txbl amount of dividends. Where the same category of person with tax paying status had 2k in divs.

That income group has ~963k taxpayers and 3.3k non-taxpayers. About 25% of the taxpayers had dividend income and 54% of the non taxpayers had dividend income.

add: since the average dividend in the 70-80k group of non taxfilers (all 3.3k of them) was 21k but only 54% of those 3.3k actually used this line of the tax return that means the average of the taxfilers who actually had dividends was \$39k.

### Re: Clippings 2012

Posted: 12 Jan 2012 19:49
newguy wrote:
EmperorCoder wrote:Hence I would be very interested to know what fraction of the zero-income-tax crowd do so because of this particular tax credit.
People who paid no tax had 2.16 billion dollars in taxable amount of dividends. That is 5 % of all dividend income claimed by all taxpayers. (Wow 46 billion dollars in total txbl dividends, good job Canada.)

Here is a graph that shows the average amount per taxfiler in each income category. eg. The average taxfiler who paid no tax and earned 70-80k had 21k in txbl amount of dividends. Where the same category of person with tax paying status had 2k in divs.

That income group has ~963k taxpayers and 3.3k non-taxpayers. About 25% of the taxpayers had dividend income and 54% of the non taxpayers had dividend income.
A lot of dividend recipients who owed no tax are probably spouses of entrepreneurs and professionals who own incorporated businesses and get dividends from preferred shares in that business. Very routine tax planning.

### Re: Clippings 2012

Posted: 12 Jan 2012 20:49
ghariton wrote:For convenience I repeat the link here. Look at the bottom of page 37.

Actually, 42% sounded on the high side to me.
I was wondering why I get a different percentage(32%) and it seems that the 42% number includes credits that aren't accounted for on income tax but are paid separately like the CCTB the UCCB and the GST credit.

newguy

### Re: Clippings 2012

Posted: 12 Jan 2012 21:20
There are various reasons why people paid no tax.

Low employment income, the 34% of filers who paid no tax only had 4% of all employment income.

Social assistance, 16% of the filers who paid no tax(the 34%) used this line. 96% of all the money paid in social assistance went to non-taxpaying filers.

For Bruce theory # 2, babysitters but I can say that 46% of the non-taxpaying filers had employment income but only 32% paid CPP (+1.4% on self employment). Babysitting type income is all I can think of because only 32% paid into EI as well. IOW there were 1.1 million people with employment income who paid no CPP and 1.3 million who paid no EI. 84% of the people who paid no EI earned less than 10K, 74% earned less than 5k.

There were 99k people using the farming income line who paid no tax. They collectively claimed a \$430 million loss AFAICT. These numbers come from subtracting taxable return numbers from the numbers on all returns. All returns had \$1645 million in farming income for 367k filers total, so not so profitable.

Partnership income also showed a loss of 33 million for the non-taxpayers.

Old folks: 27% of non-taxpaying filers are collecting CPP or QPP but only 25% claim the age amount. 2.2% use the split pension income amount.

ANy questions?

newguy

### Re: Clippings 2012

Posted: 12 Jan 2012 21:24
newguy wrote:The average taxfiler who paid no tax and earned 70-80k had 21k in txbl amount of dividends.
Wow, this statistic is like a punch in the face. A tax system that allows such high income earners to pay no income tax cannot be considered fair. Do you consider Alternative Minimum Tax in these statistics ?

### Re: Clippings 2012

Posted: 12 Jan 2012 21:30
EmperorCoder wrote:
newguy wrote:The average taxfiler who paid no tax and earned 70-80k had 21k in txbl amount of dividends.
Wow, this statistic is like a punch in the face. A tax system that allows such high income earners to pay no income tax cannot be considered fair. Do you consider Alternative Minimum Tax in these statistics ?
I don't know if you read my edit but the average number per actual person getting dividends is \$39k. The \$21k is the average for all people earning 70-80k whether they claimed dividend income or not.

There is no line for AMT so I'm not sure how that's accounted for.

newguy
Found this on the cra site for these stats.
However, we classified some returns as taxable even when the return showed a total income less than the allowable basic personal amount of \$9,600. This happened for:

individuals subject to the minimum tax
...
So I'm assuming these numbers include all the minimum tax returns as well.

add2: I was so busy answering technical questions that I forgot the emotional one.

I don't mind these people not paying income tax as they've paid corporate tax already. Even if you don't like it there were 1810 non-taxpaying filers claiming dividends in that income range and close to a 967k people who did pay tax at the same income. So no biggie.

### Re: Clippings 2012

Posted: 19 Jan 2012 22:50
For those tempted/tormented by 2011 results and headlines and who are pondering whether to fiddle with their Investment Policy Statement (you have one right?) and Asset Allocation, Vanguard's investment chief: Why 'stay the course' still makes sense

### Re: Clippings 2012

Posted: 20 Jan 2012 10:36
In a similar vein: Your own worst investing mistakes
Control your primitive reactions. Sure, somebody you know is going to make a killing by bandwagoning on a hot stock or sector—perhaps by picking yesterday’s winner. But investing is a marathon, not a sprint.

Look at last year’s winners if you must. But don’t buy anything based solely on past performance. The biggest investment enemy, after all, is the one we face in the mirror each day.

### Re: Clippings 2012

Posted: 23 Jan 2012 10:13

### Re: Clippings 2012

Posted: 23 Jan 2012 11:14
What's the world's 2nd biggest economy?

Living in Quebec I'm not surprised.

newguy

### Re: Clippings 2012

Posted: 23 Jan 2012 20:27
A Better Tax System

Recipe :
• BROADEN THE BASE AND LOWER RATES
• TAX CONSUMPTION RATHER THAN INCOME
• TAX BADS RATHER THAN GOODS
• KEEP IT SIMPLE, STUPID
Filling out tax returns will never be a delight. But if reform included simplification, the task might become a bit less onerous. And if a few accountants and tax lawyers were induced to become engineers and doctors instead, society will have moved a big step in the right direction.

### Re: Clippings 2012

Posted: 26 Jan 2012 16:38

and a tiny url of it http://tinyurl.com/75bym7v

Financial Post profile of guys fund, billed as the anti-index.

### Re: Clippings 2012

Posted: 26 Jan 2012 23:20
PnP

Both links you posted have hung up my computer (twice for each link) this evening, and required a full reboot - and some links you have posted previously have done the same...what is up there?

### Re: Clippings 2012

Posted: 26 Jan 2012 23:37
Shine wrote:PnP

Both links you posted have hung up my computer (twice for each link) this evening, and required a full reboot - and some links you have posted previously have done the same...what is up there?
Top one worked for me. What browser and OS combination (with versions) are you running. FWIW, I tried it with Chome v17 (beta and AdBlock Plus) installed and IE 9. Running Windows 7, with MSE anti-virus. In the past I've found the FP website has many links to slow ad servers that can hang things until they finally get around to responding.

### Re: Clippings 2012

Posted: 27 Jan 2012 00:22
P_I:

I am using Firefox 9.0.1. and have Ad Bloc installed. Just something odd with links to National Post for me perhaps; as already stated this has happened to me before with NP links from PnP - not to be accusatory. Clicking the link completely hangs up my computer and I need to do a hard reboot. Is it possible that PnP is using Apple and that might cause the problem with direct links?

### Re: Clippings 2012

Posted: 27 Jan 2012 00:26
Try this then, http://www.google.ca/search?q=Anti-inde ... 0outsiders which is a Google search for the article title. Then navigate via Google's link to the National Post and see if it still causes problems.

### Re: Clippings 2012

Posted: 27 Jan 2012 16:19
On BNN today Josh’s Twenty Common Sense Investing Rules

http://www.thereformedbroker.com/2012/0 ... ing-rules/

20. When you finally do become wealthy, hire other people to do this for you and watch them. Go about enjoying the short time we all have left on earth away from the screen. Kiss your kids and play tennis and read books and get drunk during the day just because and go to Australia for a month and buy that car you drove in high school - fix it up and take your sweetheart for a ride. Don't spend that time reading about inverse correlations between German bund yields and the gold/oil ratio. Because that's all masturbation and really, who gives a sh*t?