Discussions

What do you think about Ontario's new wage of 14 dollars this year? Do you think the other provinces will follow?

Sure hope not. Higher wage, higher tax bracket.

nothingspecial.. said "Sure hope not. Higher wage, higher tax bracket. "

You do realize that in Canada you are taxed at the bracket rate for only the corresponding income don't you?  
 
If you were making $45,916 (15% federal bracket) and had a wage increase to $46,000 (20.5% federal bracket) you only pay 15% on the first $45,916, the higher 20.5% rate would only apply to the additional $84. I've only quoted federal brackets but the provincial brackets work the same way.  
 
I see the whole "I don't want a raise, it would put me in a higher tax bracket" comment  
all the time. People don't seem to understand how this works in Canada.  
 
Unless the raise disqualifies a person from some sort of assistance program (thus reducing total income) then a raise does NOT lower your take home pay.

It won’t do what the Ontario government hopes it will do, that’s for sure. Low income employment rates will go down. It’s about a $6500 raise annually for a full time minimum wage position. Say a business has 10 min wage employees that’s close to $65,000 they have to cover off. That’s too big a difference to simply absorb. Staffing changes will be required to offset that.  
 
Employers will either have to reduce staff numbers or raise prices (quite dramatically IMO) to cover the wage increase. If it’s the former, less people will be working. If it’s the latter, prices of goods go up, and the raise minimum wage earners get will just go to paying their bills. So then minimum wage goes up again, the price of goods goes up, and the cycle continues. Not to mention some who had a $20/hour job just saw their buying power go down by about 25%, because while minimum wage went up, their wages remained the same.  
 
If the Ontario government really cared about low income people, they would (and the feds too) raise the basic personal income tax exemption. That would keep more money in low income earners pockets (everyone’s actually) and avoid the raising prices necessary to cover the increase in minimum wage. Of course no government will actually do that, because that’s cutting their primary source of funding. If they raise minimum wage, that can convince people they’re helping them AND collect more tax revenue from the increased income.

Who benefit from the 14/15 hr minimum wage is the government. They are just increasing their cash flow. It won’t be just the minimum wage workers getting the raise. Anyone who is working with minimum wage earners and making a bit more will also get the raise. With everyone making more money they will collect more tax and more cpp from employers. The prices will rise which will mean more tax collected on every sale as pst/gst are percentages. Hours will get cut as much as they can be, some perks will get cut and small businesses will have to do what they can to remain viable. There is no possible way the majority of small businesses can absorb the full brunt. Employees and consumers along with buisness owners will feel the pain. The only ones who won’t, will be the ones bringing in more revenue through taxes.

nothingspecial.. said "Sure hope not. Higher wage, higher tax bracket. "

You obviously don't know what you are talking about. Earning a higher wage ALWAYS means that you are pulling in more income. You don't understand tax brackets and what that means to your bottom line. I get it - so many people don't get it and I hear it all the time.  
 
It's progressive, meaning each time you hit a "target" ONLY income earned in the higher bracket is taxed at that higher amount. So if you take in more money, you earn more but the more you make ONLY the income earned in a higher bracket is taxed at that higher tax rate, and the income up to that point is still taxed at a lower point.  
 
These aren't the numbers, but to make it simple say your first 10 dollars of the year is tax free, then income between 11 dollars and 25 dollars is taxed at 20%, then income earned between 26 dollars and 40 dollars is taxed at 30%, and so on. Earning more does not EVER mean you earn less. You might think this because if you earn more you might see more deductions come off from your employer if you make enough) but at the end of the year it all gets calculated out at tax time, and if you have overpaid you get it back at the end of the year when your income is compared to the standardised tax brackets. If you don't learn this, you will be screwing yourself over, so look at the calculations and follow them in your year end tax return. It's not that complicated, just a series of calculations.  
 
Edited by JoeSixpack, 2018-01-06 02:02:07

Trevor said "It won’t do what the Ontario government hopes it will do, that’s for sure. Low income employment rates will go down. It’s about a $6500 raise annually for a full time minimum wage position. Say a business has 10 min wage employees that’s close to $65,000 they have to cover off. That’s too big a difference to simply absorb. Staffing changes will be required to offset that.     Employers will either have to reduce staff numbers or raise prices (quite dramatically IMO) to cover the wage increase. If it’s the former, less people will be working. If it’s the latter, prices of goods go up, and the raise minimum wage earners get will just go to paying their bills. So then minimum wage goes up again, the price of goods goes up, and the cycle continues. Not to mention some who had a $20/hour job just saw their buying power go down by about 25%, because while minimum wage went up, their wages remained the same.     If the Ontario government really cared about low income people, they would (and the feds too) raise the basic personal income tax exemption. That would keep more money in low income earners pockets (everyone’s actually) and avoid the raising prices necessary to cover the increase in minimum wage. Of course no government will actually do that, because that’s cutting their primary source of funding. If they raise minimum wage, that can convince people they’re helping them AND collect more tax revenue from the increased income. "

That is not true to suggest that if the government raises the basic personal amount that low income earners will benefit. Many of these minimum wage earners make barely enough to even have taxable income, period. Raising the basic personal amount will only ensure that people with high incomes also see this benefit. Add in the basic personal amount and non-refundable tax credits from schooling, dependants, etc and they will see nothing.  
 
So then the question should be asked: If a government tries to help out lower income earners by decreasing the taxable income for minimum wage earners, then what is the effect. The effect is to pass on those tax savings and that burden then falls to increased taxes for those earning just a little bit more, that have entered the minimum income tax bracket.  
 
And so I cannot understand why we continue to always have discussions about needing to penalise minimum wage earners, and so many of us always create this false story that pretends that giving a minimum wage earner an extra buck or two for an hours worth of work, is somehow such a problem for the general economy. The real discussion we SHOULD be having is why we continue to allow large corporations to benefit to the tune of BILLIONS of unpaid taxes through offshore tax havens, and while extremely rich people buy politicians to allow these benefits, these individuals are often business owners who often ALSO BENEFIT from low labour costs, middle-class built and paid infrastructure/roads/communications, etc. These criminals then offshore their profits to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. They also get away with not having to declare a wage (which is taxed at the highest amounts) and instead pay politicians to allow them to declare their massive incomes as capital gains (which are taxed at half the rate as a working stiff wage earner).  
It should make people very angry that the top 0.1% own over 90% of the wealth, that this imbalance continues to get worse and worse, and yet we continue to go after the little guy who barely makes enough to pay for a room in a shared apartment, basic groceries, and bus fare to get them to work. Meanwhile, the business owner wrights off their home, their phone, their vehicle, their gas, heat, and meals. This situation is seriously broken and needs to change. Don''t be a loser and always go after the weakest link in the food chain to blame for all your troubles, folks. Many of these people have it much worse than your worst nightmare.  
 
THE SOLUTION NEEDS TO BE TO CHANGE THE CONVERSATION. It is about recognising that it is about time that minimum wage goes up with serious rise in the cost of living. It is also about time that the rich start paying REAL wages to employees, that we revoke their excesses and taxable benefits, as well as make them pay their FAIR share of taxes. It is about time their golf membership, helicopter, and yacht not be a tax deduction. It is about time that our government officials - such as former Prime Ministers - be charge and go to prison for accepting hoards of unmarked cash in brown paper bags received in sleazy motel rooms (Mulroney), or caught with their monies in offshore tax havens like former PM''s Paul Martin, Jean Chretien, and even Canada''s Head of State Queen Elizabeth! It is time to change the conversation, and quit using the poor as a punching bag to society''s real problems.  
 
Edited by JoeSixpack, 2018-01-06 02:36:06

http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/william-watson-thank-the-rich-theyre-the-ones-paying-for-everything

However the govt has now committed to paying for pres:criptions for children under the age of 25 with OHIP+. Those are tax dollars paying for that. So the tax they are bringing in on one hand is going out in the other. The cost of living with the taxes and the cost of hydro is making Ontario a not so favourable place to live.

ece2 said "However the govt has now committed to paying for pres:criptions for children under the age of 25 with OHIP+. Those are tax dollars paying for that. So the tax they are bringing in on one hand is going out in the other. The cost of living with the taxes and the cost of hydro is making Ontario a not so favourable place to live. "

I think it would have been wonderful if the Ontario government had decided to cover the costs of pres:criptions for over 65's - now THAT would have made a huge difference for a great deal of people struggling on pensions & trying to pay hydro bills. Not so many under 25's need lots of pres:criptions in my opinion.

MDG said "    ece2 said "However the govt has now committed to paying for pres:criptions for children under the age of 25 with OHIP+. Those are tax dollars paying for that. So the tax they are bringing in on one hand is going out in the other. The cost of living with the taxes and the cost of hydro is making Ontario a not so favourable place to live. " I think it would have been wonderful if the Ontario government had decided to cover the costs of pres:criptions for over 65's - now THAT would have made a huge difference for a great deal of people struggling on pensions & trying to pay hydro bills. Not so many under 25's need lots of pres:criptions in my opinion. "

Many, but I realize not all, children are covered by their parents drug plans. I thought helping out the seniors would of been more useful. However, Wynn is trying to buy votes so the ones in the work force is who she is trying to catch. Seniors are already done working so not paying employment tax, school tax.. many can’t afford to own a home anymore so don’t pay property tax.. but agreed the ones to help are the seniors.

Good guess. I am sure it does not i:nclude the new increases a employer pays to the Government omn the workers behalf with the new wage increase.  
 
The employers portion of CPP.E.I also goes up as it is based on wage. I am not sure if Wynnes Ontario pension plan is up and running but it too would be based on wage.  
 
Those increased costs are real and above the new wage.  
 
 
Another cost over and above the wage is the employers share of a benefit package. It may or may not go up but I would bet is about the first place some employers cut or reduce their costs.  
 
Fed Tax brackets. No clue if it is the reason my cheque was raided heavily on overtime pay. Yet it does. Is it possible that the second tax takers the Feds do?  
 
Even my wife complains when she works a crap load of overtime it does not show a whole lot extra on her cheque.  
 
I tell her she will get it back at tax time. I say that is a whole lot of time for whatever level of government to use her money. She put the overtime in now so it should be hers now. CRS should be real time.  
 
Overall the Ontario Goverment did it far too fast. As the costs ripple through the system the pundits guess at 60.000 jobs lost is minimum over the year. Not many with the size of that economy!  
 
Edited by Doug, 2018-01-06 14:26:49

In Ontario is a lot higher than Manitoba. Everything except alcohol is much more expensive: all taxes, housing, utilities, gasoline, etc.  
 
Dramatically different lifestyle. You can live in your car for the amount of commuting one does. People routinely drive 1-2 hours each way to work and back.  
 
$15 an hour buys a lot more in MB than it does in ON.  
 
Ontario, however has amazing medical system. That, I miss.

The people who insist that an increase in minimum wage automatically means an increase in price for goods are out to lunch. They never take into account that those who are getting the wage hike will now have more disposable income. When people who aren't stinking rich already get more money, what do they do with it? That's right... they [i]spend it![/i] This means more goods and services purchased, therefore more produced, therefore more income for businesses, thus offsetting the wage increase.  
 
This is a good article on the subject. While not exactly expressing my own point, it does insist that low wages may be harming businesses more than a higher minimum might.  
 
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-dayen-minimum-wage-subway-sandwich-20180105-story.html

JoeSixpack said "    Trevor said "It won’t do what the Ontario government hopes it will do, that’s for sure. Low income employment rates will go down. It’s about a $6500 raise annually for a full time minimum wage position. Say a business has 10 min wage employees that’s close to $65,000 they have to cover off. That’s too big a difference to simply absorb. Staffing changes will be required to offset that.     Employers will either have to reduce staff numbers or raise prices (quite dramatically IMO) to cover the wage increase. If it’s the former, less people will be working. If it’s the latter, prices of goods go up, and the raise minimum wage earners get will just go to paying their bills. So then minimum wage goes up again, the price of goods goes up, and the cycle continues. Not to mention some who had a $20/hour job just saw their buying power go down by about 25%, because while minimum wage went up, their wages remained the same.     If the Ontario government really cared about low income people, they would (and the feds too) raise the basic personal income tax exemption. That would keep more money in low income earners pockets (everyone’s actually) and avoid the raising prices necessary to cover the increase in minimum wage. Of course no government will actually do that, because that’s cutting their primary source of funding. If they raise minimum wage, that can convince people they’re helping them AND collect more tax revenue from the increased income. " That is not true to suggest that if the government raises the basic personal amount that low income earners will benefit. Many of these minimum wage earners make barely enough to even have taxable income, period. Raising the basic personal amount will only ensure that people with high incomes also see this benefit. Add in the basic personal amount and non-refundable tax credits from schooling, dependants, etc and they will see nothing.     So then the question should be asked: If a government tries to help out lower income earners by decreasing the taxable income for minimum wage earners, then what is the effect. The effect is to pass on those tax savings and that burden then falls to increased taxes for those earning just a little bit more, that have entered the minimum income tax bracket.     And so I cannot understand why we continue to always have discussions about needing to penalise minimum wage earners, and so many of us always create this false story that pretends that giving a minimum wage earner an extra buck or two for an hours worth of work, is somehow such a problem for the general economy. The real discussion we SHOULD be having is why we continue to allow large corporations to benefit to the tune of BILLIONS of unpaid taxes through offshore tax havens, and while extremely rich people buy politicians to allow these benefits, these individuals are often business owners who often ALSO BENEFIT from low labour costs, middle-class built and paid infrastructure/roads/communications, etc. These criminals then offshore their profits to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. They also get away with not having to declare a wage (which is taxed at the highest amounts) and instead pay politicians to allow them to declare their massive incomes as capital gains (which are taxed at half the rate as a working stiff wage earner).   It should make people very angry that the top 0.1% own over 90% of the wealth, that this imbalance continues to get worse and worse, and yet we continue to go after the little guy who barely makes enough to pay for a room in a shared apartment, basic groceries, and bus fare to get them to work. Meanwhile, the business owner wrights off their home, their phone, their vehicle, their gas, heat, and meals. This situation is seriously broken and needs to change. Don''t be a loser and always go after the weakest link in the food chain to blame for all your troubles, folks. Many of these people have it much worse than your worst nightmare.     THE SOLUTION NEEDS TO BE TO CHANGE THE CONVERSATION. It is about recognising that it is about time that minimum wage goes up with serious rise in the cost of living. It is also about time that the rich start paying REAL wages to employees, that we revoke their excesses and taxable benefits, as well as make them pay their FAIR share of taxes. It is about time their golf membership, helicopter, and yacht not be a tax deduction. It is about time that our government officials - such as former Prime Ministers - be charge and go to prison for accepting hoards of unmarked cash in brown paper bags received in sleazy motel rooms (Mulroney), or caught with their monies in offshore tax havens like former PM''s Paul Martin, Jean Chretien, and even Canada''s Head of State Queen Elizabeth! It is time to change the conversation, and quit using the poor as a punching bag to society''s real problems.     Edited by JoeSixpack, 2018-01-06 02:36:06"

This will be a bit oversimplified I know, and I'm basing my numbers off 2016 tax info, but here it goes.  
 
Current federal exemption is $11,809. A current full time minimum wage employee would make $23,192, and pay $1,707.45 in federal income tax. Current MB exemption is $9382. Our employee would pay $1,491.48 in provincial income tax.  
 
If the federal exemption was raised to $16,000 (about a 26% increase), the same employee would pay $1078.80, or save $628.65 l. If the provincial exemption was raised to $12,000 (about the same increase as the federal one I created) our employee will pay $1,208.74 in provincial income tax, saving $282.74. That's a total savings of $911.39 per year.  
 
Yes, you're correct in saying every person, regardless of total income, would get those same basic savings. But tax brackets could be changed as they go up to make up the difference.  
 
 
I originally said it was about a $6500 raise, in Ontario it will actually be a $7408 raise based on a full time employee. It's $8008 in Manitoba. On top of that Manitoba employers are going to spend about an extra $375 on CPP per year and about $175 extra per year on EI. In Manitoba that's about a total of $8558 per year, per employee.  
 
Now imagine if you're an employer, say a restaurateur, and you've got 10 minimum wage employees. You're expenses just went up $85,000 annually. You've got your hard earned money and lots of sweat equity invested in your business. You're financial stability is one the line. Now how are you going to offset that $85,000?  
 
Finally, when did the business owner become the bad guy in society. When did we go from looking at the successful business owner with the nice house or fancy car and go from thinking "man I want to be that guy someday" to "that guy has too much money, f&#k him." And from rather than trying to improve one's lot in life, to beating those down who are trying to make something for themselves??  
 
For the record I don't own my own business, although that is my aspirations eventually.

Thanks for running the numbers, Trevor. They all look good, and you have done a very thorough and thoughtful assessment.  
 
As I already stated, I am not going after the small business owner living on the margins. My comments have asked why we are even discussing the small business owner pitted against the minimum wage earner. It's a thoughtless discussion about the real problems.  
 
The solutions:  
 
(1) Go after the big players, who continue to avoid paying taxes, and who buy out politicians to let them have loopholes to have income go untaxed. Capital gains taxes on their income are at HALF of the rate that should be paid, which is forced on wage earners. High income earners don't claim wages because they can manipulate their tax return in a way that sees them paying no to little tax. Or they go offshore and pay nothing at all. Look at all the company CEOs. In essence, they are employees but they set up their arrangements to make it so they show very little income (some with a $1 annual salary) and get the rest in stock options which makes their effective tax rate HALF of what it should be. When they do this, the government pot does not receive these contributions (which often amounts in millions of unpaid taxes) and the wage earners have to make up this difference in their tax rate.  
 
(2) We can lower EVERYBODY's tax burden - the middle class - by making sure high income earners pay their fare share of taxes. Big income earners should not be able to claim meals, vacations, private jets and yachts, or golf memberships as a business expense. It's not. It is a fraud perpetrated on the hard working middle class worker who gets the shaft every single time. You want to solve them problem, make the billionaires pay their fare share of taxes so that the middle class - including the small business owners and minimum wage earners - pay less effective tax. If small business owners paid a lesser amount in taxes, then they could afford to pay minimum wage earners a higher salary. People's view on this is wrong, because they fail to see the real problem, which is the tax avoidance schemes at the top, the offshoring of income, the way capital gains earnings are taxed, and the assault on the minimum wage earner over a $2 per hour wage increase. I can tell you that over the past 10 years, housing everywhere has at a very minimum DOUBLED, but the income of wage earners has been stagnant, and the hidden costs of significant inflation through bank/government frauds - including the 2008 quantitative easing bailouts - have left the middle class in this country (and globally) hurting.

I’m guessing the people complaint about the hike are not working for minimum wage. I don’t know people working for minimum wage survive these days. Groceries are getting so expensive, hydro is ridiculous, and rents in this city are getting outrageous. I am glad to hear of the increase. I’m not an economics major or anything but the more money people have, the more they spend which has to be a good thing no?

Wages for a small business or any business make up a large part of the overhead. No different than hydro or land tax,. Hydro is to increase by 60% over the next few years as well. Bet the heat and lights will stay on. Most business have the ability to pass it on to the consumer to some extent. If your signing the cheque it is a lot different than the fellow cashing it, obviously.

I don’t know how people afford to comfortably live on minimum wage either. As a self employed person in the service industry (childcare), I make $14/hr BEFORE all of my business expenses. I do not receive paid sick days or holidays. We manage and are not in debt but we definitely aren’t swimming in the money either.  
 
It would be nice to see minimum wage go up, heck ALL wages!! It’s hard for me to increase my income because many people already complain that MB’s childcare is too expensive. In order for me to increase my income, I’d have to cut corners elsewhere.  
 
What was ON’s minimum wage before this?  
 
Edited by sammy, 2018-01-06 18:24:14

It was at 11.40 before the increase.

The raising of the minimum wage does not help us, yes the taxes go up, but more importantly when the base line wages go up cost of living increases by as much or more.  
 
Look back 30 years, a reasonable wage that a single person could live on and still go out was $12 an hour or less, but the garage that fixed your car charged $40 an hour.  
 
Listen to what our parents or grandparents say about the all mighty dollar and what it buys today and what it would buy when they were our age.  
 
I know 27 years ago I was making $13 an hour, and 10 years ago different province I was making $13 an hour and just had less.  
 
so in my experience I do not like to see the minimum wage go up since I know the cost of living will go up too. Ithe government should instead lower the cost of living for everyone!!

lad said "The raising of the minimum wage does not help us, yes the taxes go up, but more importantly when the base line wages go up cost of living increases by as much or more.     Look back 30 years, a reasonable wage that a single person could live on and still go out was $12 an hour or less, but the garage that fixed your car charged $40 an hour.     Listen to what our parents or grandparents say about the all mighty dollar and what it buys today and what it would buy when they were our age.     I know 27 years ago I was making $13 an hour, and 10 years ago different province I was making $13 an hour and just had less.     so in my experience I do not like to see the minimum wage go up since I know the cost of living will go up too. Ithe government should instead lower the cost of living for everyone!! "

You made minimum wage, and continue to make minimum wage, because your mentality is one that wants to stay small, one that just keeps you on the margin of survival. It is a "perspective" you have, where for whatever irrational reason, you think the less you make the better off you will be. Nobody can solve your "situation" but you. I guess some people just think that that is where they belong, and their "mental" situation prevents them from making improvements. It is the only way I can explain these types of comments. Unfortunate, but people should learn to think differently. Often, it is the only thing holding them back.  
 
Your quote: "so in my experience I do not like to see the minimum wage go up since I know the cost of living will go up too. Ithe government should instead lower the cost of living for everyone!!"  
 
Unreal, and yet so unfortunate. I feel for ya.

As a result of the 2.50 increase in minimum wage more businesses will use more automation. Consequently more people will be unemployed.  
For example Tim Hortons can install a couple of vending machines for people who just want an ordinary cup of coffee. There goes one job. No wages, no vacation time, no "I am sorry I slept in".  
Stores can install more self-checkouts. Same results.  
And the governments will get less taxes, not more!

JoeSixpack said "Thanks for running the numbers, Trevor. They all look good, and you have done a very thorough and thoughtful assessment.     As I already stated, I am not going after the small business owner living on the margins. My comments have asked why we are even discussing the small business owner pitted against the minimum wage earner. It's a thoughtless discussion about the real problems.     The solutions:     (1) Go after the big players, who continue to avoid paying taxes, and who buy out politicians to let them have loopholes to have income go untaxed. Capital gains taxes on their income are at HALF of the rate that should be paid, which is forced on wage earners. High income earners don't claim wages because they can manipulate their tax return in a way that sees them paying no to little tax. Or they go offshore and pay nothing at all. Look at all the company CEOs. In essence, they are employees but they set up their arrangements to make it so they show very little income (some with a $1 annual salary) and get the rest in stock options which makes their effective tax rate HALF of what it should be. When they do this, the government pot does not receive these contributions (which often amounts in millions of unpaid taxes) and the wage earners have to make up this difference in their tax rate.     (2) We can lower EVERYBODY's tax burden - the middle class - by making sure high income earners pay their fare share of taxes. Big income earners should not be able to claim meals, vacations, private jets and yachts, or golf memberships as a business expense. It's not. It is a fraud perpetrated on the hard working middle class worker who gets the shaft every single time. You want to solve them problem, make the billionaires pay their fare share of taxes so that the middle class - including the small business owners and minimum wage earners - pay less effective tax. If small business owners paid a lesser amount in taxes, then they could afford to pay minimum wage earners a higher salary. People's view on this is wrong, because they fail to see the real problem, which is the tax avoidance schemes at the top, the offshoring of income, the way capital gains earnings are taxed, and the assault on the minimum wage earner over a $2 per hour wage increase. I can tell you that over the past 10 years, housing everywhere has at a very minimum DOUBLED, but the income of wage earners has been stagnant, and the hidden costs of significant inflation through bank/government frauds - including the 2008 quantitative easing bailouts - have left the middle class in this country (and globally) hurting. "

Joe six pack...can you please provide backup for your claims? You seem to think that the ultra rich do not pay their share. Can you show me the back up for that? These ‘billionaires’ you speak of, how much tax are they paying? Please provide your proof to back up your numbers.  
 
Secondly, vacations, golf memberships, etc are not business expenses. Meals, yes as long as they can be proven to be business related. If businesses are claiming expenses that are not business related and are caught they will be disallowed and penalties and fines will follow.  
 
Can I ask why you hate those that have worked their butts off and in return have been rewarded financially so much?  
 
Increasing minimum wage like the Ontario government did will kill many small businesses. It actually makes me sad for society that so many don’t understand the effects of this.  
 
Also, would love if someone could explain to me how minimum wage legislation is not an act of communism?

Never_give_up said "    JoeSixpack said "Thanks for running the numbers, Trevor. They all look good, and you have done a very thorough and thoughtful assessment.     As I already stated, I am not going after the small business owner living on the margins. My comments have asked why we are even discussing the small business owner pitted against the minimum wage earner. It's a thoughtless discussion about the real problems.     The solutions:     (1) Go after the big players, who continue to avoid paying taxes, and who buy out politicians to let them have loopholes to have income go untaxed. Capital gains taxes on their income are at HALF of the rate that should be paid, which is forced on wage earners. High income earners don't claim wages because they can manipulate their tax return in a way that sees them paying no to little tax. Or they go offshore and pay nothing at all. Look at all the company CEOs. In essence, they are employees but they set up their arrangements to make it so they show very little income (some with a $1 annual salary) and get the rest in stock options which makes their effective tax rate HALF of what it should be. When they do this, the government pot does not receive these contributions (which often amounts in millions of unpaid taxes) and the wage earners have to make up this difference in their tax rate.     (2) We can lower EVERYBODY's tax burden - the middle class - by making sure high income earners pay their fare share of taxes. Big income earners should not be able to claim meals, vacations, private jets and yachts, or golf memberships as a business expense. It's not. It is a fraud perpetrated on the hard working middle class worker who gets the shaft every single time. You want to solve them problem, make the billionaires pay their fare share of taxes so that the middle class - including the small business owners and minimum wage earners - pay less effective tax. If small business owners paid a lesser amount in taxes, then they could afford to pay minimum wage earners a higher salary. People's view on this is wrong, because they fail to see the real problem, which is the tax avoidance schemes at the top, the offshoring of income, the way capital gains earnings are taxed, and the assault on the minimum wage earner over a $2 per hour wage increase. I can tell you that over the past 10 years, housing everywhere has at a very minimum DOUBLED, but the income of wage earners has been stagnant, and the hidden costs of significant inflation through bank/government frauds - including the 2008 quantitative easing bailouts - have left the middle class in this country (and globally) hurting. " Joe six pack...can you please provide backup for your claims? You seem to think that the ultra rich do not pay their share. Can you show me the back up for that? These ‘billionaires’ you speak of, how much tax are they paying? Please provide your proof to back up your numbers.     Secondly, vacations, golf memberships, etc are not business expenses. Meals, yes as long as they can be proven to be business related. If businesses are claiming expenses that are not business related and are caught they will be disallowed and penalties and fines will follow.     Can I ask why you hate those that have worked their butts off and in return have been rewarded financially so much?     Increasing minimum wage like the Ontario government did will kill many small businesses. It actually makes me sad for society that so many don’t understand the effects of this.     Also, would love if someone could explain to me how minimum wage legislation is not an act of communism? "

Never Give Up,  
 
I would love to entertain responding to your comment, but not when this becomes an unintelligent conversation where you clearly don't know what you are talking about. And so I am asking for you to retract your last sentence, or at least explain to the Brandon community how you associate "minimum wage legislation" with an "act of communism". Clearly, you are one of those people in society, probably between 50 and 70 years of age, who grew up in an era where the plain "idea" of "communism" was so horrible for you that it still exists, and because the propaganda that your government and the media fed you during that period drilled that idea into you head, and created an enemy for which Canadians and other patriots went into unnecessary wars and shed the blood of millions of veterans and innocent (foreign) civilians.  
 
I would really love to start this conversation there, with your explaining your statement that "minimum wage legislation" as being an "act of communism".  
 
Please do your research, and get back to the eBrandon community with a clear definition of the word "communism" and what it actually means. Then explain to this community how the word communism relates to this conversation in terms of "minimum wage legislation".  
 
After we get through clarifying this concept, I will be glad to entertain the other aspects of your response.  
 
I really look forward to our discussion, but all of the misinformed statements are really driving me nuts, and don't offer a starting point for this discussion. Thanks.  
 
Edited by JoeSixpack, 2018-01-07 01:09:22

Times are rough. Ron Joyce, Tim Hortons franchisee, yacht for sale:  
 
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/08/27/tim_hortons_billionaire_ron_joyce_selling_his_yacht_for_199_million.html

Are these really the type of people that we should be defending on eBrandon? To my way of thinking, these actions do not represent what small business is supposed to stand for ...  
 
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/01/20/tim-hortons-billionaire-co-founder-ron-joyce-loses-bid-to-have-sex-assault-suit-tossed.html  
 
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/tim-hortons-co-founder-ron-joyce-faces-sexual-assault-lawsuit-calls-it-extortion-1.3049939  
 
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/tim-hortons-co-founder-s-son-says-yacht-sex-was-consensual-1.3044951

Are these really the type of people that we should be defending on eBrandon? To my way of thinking, these actions do not represent what small business is supposed to stand for ...  
 
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/01/20/tim-hortons-billionaire-co-founder-ron-joyce-loses-bid-to-have-sex-assault-suit-tossed.html  
 
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/tim-hortons-co-founder-ron-joyce-faces-sexual-assault-lawsuit-calls-it-extortion-1.3049939  
 
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/tim-hortons-co-founder-s-son-says-yacht-sex-was-consensual-1.3044951

While yes seniors do need pres:criptions but younger people them too. My pres:criptions can run over $500 a month, some one else I know $1200. And collage and university students without health care that have diabitiesis have it tough as it is very expensive disease to have. And it not completely the fault of the person who has it is also hereditary.

Necessary senior pres:criptions are already covered in ontario... one of the reasons my in-laws won’t move her to be closer to us... the Ontario gov’t is just adding in youth.  
 
I think the problem with the hike in min wage is that it spiked so quickly. If it had been gradual (as most other increases have been in the past) business owners wouldn’t have panicked as they have. Now everyone will be jacking up prices and cutting employee hours. Companies will be continuing to automate.