I'd like to so no taxes on an individuals liveable income. Cap income by law at $125,000 per worker, and then classify any further income as either a bonus, dividend, or stock option which could be taxed at 50%.

IMO let people that work have the right to keep their money and have the windfall profits of the wealthy over $125,000 per year pick up some of the slack. Eliminate the inefficiencies of the income tax code and all the politics and loop holes that come with its manipulation for special interest groups.

I’d like to see a government that respects a working mans liveable wage and allows a person to save their wage in cash without taxation penalty. I think it should be a fundamental human right.

I also think the government should strive to eliminate the savings taxation of inflation of the monetary supply that devalues savings in favour of the fake money capitalists (mostly foreigners buying our companies).

I also think taxation of primary residence should be illegal in Canada and municipalities should be funded through their allocation of the collected carbon tax in their jurisdiction.

I'd like to see a 10% tax....and no write offs for anybody...make a dollar par a dime. That goes for the big boys too....all would be fair....what a dream....fair....ha ha

A cap on income at any level would be good for the USA. The best and brightest Canadians would move to the USA.

It's human nature and motivation that makes things work. Make a system that doesn't recognize the former and take away the latter, and you have the old USSR in Canada. Luckily for Canada and Eagleone, most Canadians have a system that rewards those that go for the gold.

Yama it wouldn't be a cap on income. Its no different then the basic exemption is today... except that its $125,000 rather than $8929. Any income beyond $125,000 could still be earned it would just be classified different and be taxed at a rate that is appropriate.

You of all people Yama should see the merrit in a man keeping the wage he earns rather than have a protion forced to a general revenue fund for politicians to buy votes with. I think a 'liveable wage' would be well under $125,000 exemption limit per person... $250,000 per family.

After a quarter million a year earnings maybe it is fair that they pay back to society some taxes for the subsidization of a society for them to make those windfall 'profits' (money you can't find a place to spend). No body is saying a family couldn't make more then the exemption limit... in fact that would be great because then they could pay taxes that we all benefit from. Why not tax that windfall income and leave the working man to make his living unmolested by the bureaucracy of slave broker politics (income tax allocation)?

Yama supports slave broker politicians that want to allocate your paycheck....

The problem with the whole "liveable wage" concept is that it's completely different for everyone depending on their own individual circumstances (where they live, how they spend their money, how much debt they have, etc.).

For example, how did you come up with $125K Eagleone? Is it based on your personal view of what should be a "liveable wage"? Do you want the government making that determination for you? Afterall, maybe they think $75K should be that threshhold.

IMHO, all but the lowest income earners should contribute to the general coffers. Our current system of progressively increasing rates makes the most sense to me.

I picked $125,000 as a figure that I would think includes everyone but the top 5% of wage earners. Executive compensations these days are out of control at a time when employees are seeing their disposable income decline and I think this would be a way of rebalancing the compensation for labour.

For me $50,000 would be a comfortable living wage, but I recognize my living wage is not the same as that of a doctor, but if mine is less why should I not also have the opportunity to make more and not be taxed on that up to a point where any more income is clearly windfall profits.

I think the government could set the level of windfall profits based on the top income made by the lowest 95% of the population. Clearly anything over $125,000 a year is windfall profits for anyone I don't care what kind of lifestyle they live.

IMHO a persons income should not be taxed until they decide to spend that income. A dollar earned should be a dollar earned, and the CITIZEN SHOULD DECIDE if they want to make an expenditure that requires taxation. I don't think the government has any constitutional role to play in skimming from the top of your paycheck. The income tax is a form of enslaving the citizens to unaccountable spending by politicians buying votes from special interest groups. I believe taxes should only apply to economic transactions outside of the liveable wage employment compensation.

Our system of progressively increasing rates discourages innovation, hard work, fairness for the extra work services provided… and encourages bureaucracy, accounting inefficiencies in the billions, corruption, and a slanted playing field based on knowledge of tax evasion loop holes in the system.

IMO a dollar earned should be a dollar earned.

Count me as one would rather see resource export taxes rather than income taxes on a citizens liveable wage, or local carbon taxes rather than home taxes for municipalities.

At the end of the day, the government has to get their money to operate from somewhere. If it's lower or non-existent income taxes for the first $125,000 in income, then I suspect consumption taxes or taxes on economic transactions outside of employment compensation, would have to be set at levels that would allow them to recoup the taxes that were foregone on the income tax side. What really is the difference then?

The notion of not paying tax unless you choose to is an interesting one, but will that allow the bills to be paid?