Sounds like Costco. My friend works at Costco and relayed a very similar story. If not, then it is right across the retail board. It's unfortunate since these very large corporations are still making beyond millions in profits. It's the classic " cut the end of the totem pole, the ones who actually matter on food chain and take the brunt of it and are trying to make ends meet. Corporate greed.
Does raising the minimum wage actually benefit anyone?
- Thread starter Hugh Jass
- Start date
This works until it finally reaches that critical tipping point. Think about how a game of monopoly always ends. I think we are almost there.
Canada had no need for this discussion in the days when Canada had its own manufacturing industries. Everybody was so well off that adults could be charged with vagrancy if found in public with less that $20 on their person when the minimum wage was 75 cents per hour.
News agencies are not credible sources.
https://www.americanexperiment.org/...ose-a-federal-minimum-wage-of-15-00-per-hour/
Harper gave tax cuts to the wealthy and $60 billion worth of tax cuts to the corporations. The economy stagnated because the rich didn't spend, and the corporations didn't invest.
The rest of us got saddled with $160 billion of debt to pay for that boondoggle.
Trudeau gave the middle class tax cuts and greatly increased the Canada Child Benefit. The result?
The wealthy may pay less tax relatively but pay more tax absolutely.
I paid only 24 percent in income taxes last year - thanks to tax breaks. But my tax bill amounted to 711,000 dollars. In my side business, I employ 13 people. All in all, I directly and indirectly contributed nearly 1.1 million dollars in taxes.
Jobless rate is also low because the overall economy has been healthier last two years since the 2008 recession. It has little to do with Turdeau's policy.
You should look up the average Canadian tax contributions now vs Harper. I believe we now each pay 1300 dollars more per person than Harper regime. Our PM also sent 680 million dollars overseas for women's education, most of which ended up in corrupt regimes and did nothing to help anyone.
I digress.
Crude is inelastic. When crude was 150 we weren't paying carbon taxes and the government wasn't taxing taxes.
You are correct that Canadians are paying more tax under Trudeau than under Harper.During the 2015 hustings Trudeau promised the moon and was telling lies the whole time.He increased the "Canada Child Benefit" compared to the Harper "Child Tax Credit"....yes it paid more BUT under Trudeau it is counted as TAXABLE income and it is also subject to a threshold.Meaning that if your family makes a certain amount of money you get jack shit.Trudeau also axed all of the tax credits like the child fitness credit and others.Lop off the write offs and viola Canadians are paying more money to the fiscally inept Trudeau government that is pissing it down the Lieberal toilet.All the while Canada has racked up 20 BILLION more in DEBT with no light at the end of the tunnel.
SR
Caution: off topic:
The Canada Child Benefit (CCB) is a tax-free monthly payment. It helps Canadian parents offset the high cost of raising children under the age of 18. Moreover, the CCB provides a significant net cash boost to parents of different income levels.
Families with combined incomes under $66,000 will get more out of the program. But the maximum benefit per child targets low-income parents with an adjusted family income below $30,000.
What is the child tax credit?
The Child Tax Credit was a non-refundable tax credit claimed on a tax return. It was replaced, along with the Universal Child Care Benefit (UCCB) in July of 2016. That’s when the liberal government made sweeping changes and rolled out the Canada Child Benefit (CCB) program.
Amounts paid under the UCCB program were taxable income reported by the parent. On the other hand, CCB payments are tax-free and payments aren’t reported on your tax return or calculated in your tax payable calculation.
The CCB pays you automatically, no need for claims or receipts
In a nutshell, by 2017, the CCB simplified federal Child and Family Benefit programs. It also replaced other measures like the confusing Fitness Amount Tax Credit. Once you apply for the CCB, the CRA calculates your benefit automatically every year based on the family income you declare. It then deposits your benefit monthly into your bank account, starting in July.
Source: https://www.mileiq.com/en-ca/blog/how-much-canada-child-benefit-amount/
The Canada Child Benefit (CCB) is a tax-free monthly payment. It helps Canadian parents offset the high cost of raising children under the age of 18. Moreover, the CCB provides a significant net cash boost to parents of different income levels.
Families with combined incomes under $66,000 will get more out of the program. But the maximum benefit per child targets low-income parents with an adjusted family income below $30,000.
What is the child tax credit?
The Child Tax Credit was a non-refundable tax credit claimed on a tax return. It was replaced, along with the Universal Child Care Benefit (UCCB) in July of 2016. That’s when the liberal government made sweeping changes and rolled out the Canada Child Benefit (CCB) program.
Amounts paid under the UCCB program were taxable income reported by the parent. On the other hand, CCB payments are tax-free and payments aren’t reported on your tax return or calculated in your tax payable calculation.
The CCB pays you automatically, no need for claims or receipts
In a nutshell, by 2017, the CCB simplified federal Child and Family Benefit programs. It also replaced other measures like the confusing Fitness Amount Tax Credit. Once you apply for the CCB, the CRA calculates your benefit automatically every year based on the family income you declare. It then deposits your benefit monthly into your bank account, starting in July.
Source: https://www.mileiq.com/en-ca/blog/how-much-canada-child-benefit-amount/
Indirectly? I hope you're not laying claim to the payroll taxes deducted from your employees' gross salary as part of your own indirect contribution?
I already do. Probably a similar scale business.
But just because it's deducted at source doesn't mean it's coming out of your pocket. It's still coming out of theirs. Certainly they would say they're the ones contributing it. You can't double count it.
People have to let go of this misguided notion that employers are benefactors. We don't pay people except to get something (their skill, labour, etc.) in return. We can't lay magnanimous claim to a "contribution". It was just a fair trade (or at least mutually agreeable trade) of cash for something we needed. End of story. Your/my contribution on that level is a zero sum.
I disagree. You own a business. Your hardwork, ideas, management style, negotiation tactics, skills are all investments you made in your life time. People using their skills to make you more money in exchange for making themself some money using your resources is already a fair game. Without you, they'd be jobless or working for less. They certainly wouldn't have access to the markets or opportunities you opened up from your hard work and intellect.
We as employers have a choice to employ others or more capable people. Employees must compete with others for the same job and prove they can make money. Knowing that you have the upperhand should make you more confident and fuel your desire to do better for your employees. We shouldn't be assholes lording it over those who work for us, but I also wouldn't accept anything less than hard working employees who know they are replaceable parts in a bigger engine.
We as employers have a choice to employ others or more capable people. Employees must compete with others for the same job and prove they can make money. Knowing that you have the upperhand should make you more confident and fuel your desire to do better for your employees. We shouldn't be assholes lording it over those who work for us, but I also wouldn't accept anything less than hard working employees who know they are replaceable parts in a bigger engine.
We're replaceable too. There's the market, the labour, and the person who recognised that market and found the labour to serve it, a.k.a. the employer. The employer is every bit as interchangeable as the employee. If you and I were competitors, one of us could drive the other out of business, but to capture the other's share of the market we'd need the other's production capacity, which likely as not means we'd need the others' employees. So are you (am I) the reason their jobs exist or is the market the reason?
We didn't create the business opportunity. It was there already, either dormant or already in the hands of a competitor. We just recognised it. Though we may be unique contributors within our own company, we are not unique in the market. Yes, we took the risk and we pulled it all together. That is our contribution to the team and the justification for our share.
But I've seen a lot of companies in my line of work fold (including several run by former colleagues), and you know who was the first to find a new opportunity that compensates just as well, if not better, often within days? Not the owner. It's the skilled employees. Maybe it's not so with your business and that's why you see it differently.
Anyway, for me, I want to stay in the market and get my piece of the pie, so I make sure my best employees want to work for me, not you (hypothetically speaking). So I think of us as a team, rather than like I'm doing them a favour by granting them the opportunity to work for me. I contribute to them. They contribute to me. Zero sum. What they do with their compensation is their business and I'm happy for them to lay moral claim to that contribution to society, for all that's worth.
Short of it, while my particular company couldn't function without me, if it didn't exist, I'm confident my guys would still be employed and paying taxes. So I can't say the government wouldn't have that tax revenue from my guys if it weren't for me. So I don't feel like laying any claim to "indirect contributions."
Why not be proud of being the brains behind people who use your skills to function?
If you're not doing it, someone else will be leading them, resulting in indirect contributions. It might be more, or less. Most of these employees don't have the skills to found a company and make 10 million dollars a year. If they did, you'd be replaced, being happy someone gave you the opportunity to work and make your tax bill.
Companies fold because their leadership suck. Yours didn't. Own your prowess.
Leaders and the upper class exist because they possess unique skills, talents and luck others do not. If people working for you are contributing tax revenues, you therefore are the engine behind that tax.
Skilled Labour isn't leadership. Leadership isn talent. Talent requires luck. It's very difficult to make a boat load of money, let alone enough money that you can pay people to make you more money.
A couple of different opinions on this... one from a Conservative commentator...the other from a left wing British newspaper re AOC's fight for tipped employees to be paid a "fair wage" instead of being in "indentured servitude". Obviously AOC is not aware of the meaning of indentured servitude as its definition is:
"Indentured servitude refers to a labor contract where someone is required to work for a landowner or another individual, typically for a period of five to seven years, in exchange for an expensive passage out of Europe." Somehow I doubt that relates in any way to the work conditions of tipped employees and their freedom of movement in this day and age....however
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/elder-aoc-returns-to-the-scene-of-the-minimum-wage-crime
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ortez-bar-tipped-minimum-wage-queens-new-york
"Indentured servitude refers to a labor contract where someone is required to work for a landowner or another individual, typically for a period of five to seven years, in exchange for an expensive passage out of Europe." Somehow I doubt that relates in any way to the work conditions of tipped employees and their freedom of movement in this day and age....however
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/elder-aoc-returns-to-the-scene-of-the-minimum-wage-crime
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ortez-bar-tipped-minimum-wage-queens-new-york
One dollar per hour raise to one employee adds (1 employee x 8 hours x 22 days x 12 months) $2112.00 per year to an employer's expenses. Also add the CPP and EI contribution.
My company employs 23 to 25 employees. You do the math.
What happens, company raises price of its product. Guess who buys these products, an average Joe. I am not saying people don't deserve raises. But to set a blind target to please voters is utmost insanity.
Not to turn this discussion political, I am a long life NDP'er but abolishing tolls, getting rid of MSP premiums, raising minimum way too much, and too quick is really turning me off Mr Horgan.
My company employs 23 to 25 employees. You do the math.
What happens, company raises price of its product. Guess who buys these products, an average Joe. I am not saying people don't deserve raises. But to set a blind target to please voters is utmost insanity.
Not to turn this discussion political, I am a long life NDP'er but abolishing tolls, getting rid of MSP premiums, raising minimum way too much, and too quick is really turning me off Mr Horgan.
Why on earth would you mention AOC in any rational discussion?She is a wacked out left wing Socialist nutjob who is utterly clueless.She referred to her taking office as being "inaugerated" when that only applies to the Presidency.Her "Green New Deal" is just as fucked up and destructive and costly as the NDP LEAP manifesto in that it would cost the USA 40 TRILLION to implement and if it were actually implemented I would say 120 TRILLION in capital would FLEE from the USA to tax havens.
Her vision is even worse than Bernie Sanders and his "Demoractic Socialism" mantra as it has been proven many times over that Socialism just does not work especially if it is forced upon a society by political elites.
My prediction for AOC....it will be the same as what Deborah Drever here in Alberta got.One term and then punted from office.
SR
The whole idea of raising minimum wage is right but for the wrong reasons. The cost of living vs income has spread to a huge degree in some markets- Vancouver being one. But a spread has happened in other ways too with income and expenses not related to cost of living- education being one. There’s a bigger mountain to climb for many to get out of poverty. The concept of raising min wage is based around that.
However, as mentioned before that just takes money from the business/employer. So another idea is to change tax laws for low earning, people so rather than increase wage decrease taxes to help manage the income to expense gap. So the govt takes a hit now where does the shortfall come from?
It always comes around to where the money is and some one will pay more in some way. Before arguing about whether a certain level of min wage is good or bad other questions need to be asked, discussed and answered. Such as what measures as a society do we want to use to reduce poverty as best we can?
I’ve owned 2 businesses and wrestled with the fair wage thing a ton. It’s a tricky situation and one that is hard to really reconcile. Eventually I had to ask myself how much happier i was by having more. The answer came by having my freedom not bu having money and that after a certain point I only needed so much money to have the freedom I needed. We created a profit sharing plan for staff based on metrics for the company not individual performance so that all were guaranteed something not insignificant, then we built in personal incentive goals.
Would this have been possible with a guaranteed minimum wage level? Maybe but it would have been different but I also know that in my industry our business was thr only one who did this year over year for over 15 years.
If the goal is to improve everyone’s lives based around income it can be done but you have to want to do it.
However, as mentioned before that just takes money from the business/employer. So another idea is to change tax laws for low earning, people so rather than increase wage decrease taxes to help manage the income to expense gap. So the govt takes a hit now where does the shortfall come from?
It always comes around to where the money is and some one will pay more in some way. Before arguing about whether a certain level of min wage is good or bad other questions need to be asked, discussed and answered. Such as what measures as a society do we want to use to reduce poverty as best we can?
I’ve owned 2 businesses and wrestled with the fair wage thing a ton. It’s a tricky situation and one that is hard to really reconcile. Eventually I had to ask myself how much happier i was by having more. The answer came by having my freedom not bu having money and that after a certain point I only needed so much money to have the freedom I needed. We created a profit sharing plan for staff based on metrics for the company not individual performance so that all were guaranteed something not insignificant, then we built in personal incentive goals.
Would this have been possible with a guaranteed minimum wage level? Maybe but it would have been different but I also know that in my industry our business was thr only one who did this year over year for over 15 years.
If the goal is to improve everyone’s lives based around income it can be done but you have to want to do it.
Unless you're talking about a fuel tax rebate along with the existing GST rebate providing a tax return is filed, low earners hardly pay any taxes except for some GST/PST when buying a cell phone or article of clothing. Canada and particularly western & eastern Canada have always had a job quality problem fraunt with low skill retail/wholesale and resource extraction supplemented with non-producing civil service. For central Canada trade treaties have sent potentially high paying skilled manufacturing jobs into jurisdictions that use marginalized labour and lax environmental standards, in exchange for cheap imported products. The short term pain is to throw up tariff barriers that would motivate the few existing manufacturers in Canada to expand operations. With good management and automation Canadian manufacturers could compete better internationally that would balance Canada's trade deficit beyond what could be achieved by supplying the Canadian market, and in turn allow lowering or eliminating tariffs as gesture of goodwill toward trading partners.
