3897 Shares

Difference between U.S. and Canada tax rates?

Difference between U.S. and Canada tax rates? Topic: Journal and article difference
May 25, 2019 / By Johna
Question: If I earn 30k per year, if you add up federal, state/provincial, social security/insurance, etc. what's the difference in tax % between U.S. and Canada? Just in general is fine, but if you want to get specific, what's difference between Alberta and Illinois tax?
Best Answer

Best Answers: Difference between U.S. and Canada tax rates?

Gaye Gaye | 9 days ago
Total tax rate (as a percentage of GDP in 2005): Canada 37.2% USA 29% http://journal.ilovephilosophy.com/Artic... For an average income earner (2004): Canada: 25% USA: 24% http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/librar...
👍 266 | 👎 9
Did you like the answer? Difference between U.S. and Canada tax rates? Share with your friends

We found more questions related to the topic: Journal and article difference


Gaye Originally Answered: If lowering federal income tax rates were so good, why ware real wages and growth rates so dismal compared?
Nope! I can tell you this from doing a thesis on Tax rates and how they affect the economy. EVERY time it's done, the economy has improved, sometimes faster than others. When John Kennedy lowered taxes in the 60's, the economy was great! When Ronald Reagan cut taxes in the 80's, we had the 80's boom. The theory is pretty simple: and I do urge you to do some research and find out for yourself: If the government cuts your taxes, you have more money (it's yours anyway!) to spend. You spend it in businesses in your area, and they prosper. If they prosper, they can buy more supplies, they can hire people, etc. Trickle Down Economics works! It works every time it's tried. The killing thing about taxes is, too many people are mooching off the government and the money they take from you and I is never ending. Some programs need to be cut, i.e. NEA (not in the constitution) or funding for NPR (not in the constitution) and cutting stuff like building tunnels for turtles or studying the sex habits of frogs! All of that kind of stuff is stuff that the government has no business being involved in. So, since NObama has been in charge, there have been no tax cuts. What the repubs want is to simply EXTEND the current tax cuts that the Bush Admin. brought about. Not even LOWERING taxes, but just extending what is already set to expire in January 2011. If those tax cuts are allowed to expire, EVERYONE's taxes go up, therefore less money for you and me. Do you want that? Didn't think so. And also, this nonsense about 'tax cuts for the wealthy' is hogwash. The so called "wealthy" in this country pay more than 98% (not exactly sure but high 90"s) of all taxes. The lower economic scales PAY NONE. People who are 'wealthy' are the people who create jobs, for heavens sake. If the gov. keeps taking more and more of their money, the won't be able to spend, or hire people or whatever.
Gaye Originally Answered: If lowering federal income tax rates were so good, why ware real wages and growth rates so dismal compared?
It's pointless trying to explain it to you. I'll just give you a New York Times source, which states: "MIGHT TAX CUTS BE MORE POTENT? Textbook Keynesian theory says that tax cuts are less potent than spending increases for stimulating an economy. When the government spends a dollar, the dollar is spent. When the government gives a household a dollar back in taxes, the dollar might be saved, which does not add to aggregate demand. The evidence, however, is hard to square with the theory. A recent study by Christina D. Romer and David H. Romer, then economists at the University of California, Berkeley, finds that a dollar of tax cuts raises the G.D.P. by about $3. According to the Romers, the multiplier for tax cuts is more than twice what Professor Ramey finds for spending increases. "
Gaye Originally Answered: If lowering federal income tax rates were so good, why ware real wages and growth rates so dismal compared?
Well, yes; we've spent nearly three decades using the entire system of taxation and government finance to concentrate wealth in fewer hands. A whole lot of this comes from deficit spending, because every nickel the government spends goes into someone's pocket--and a whole lot of people who didn't get any are getting handed the debts to pay off. (And guess who collects most of the interest, too?) The thing about people with lots of money is that they aren't as motivated to keep it circulating. The result is an economy headed more and more toward being the Last Banana Republic: lots of people working for the wealthy, and lots more out of work, and most of them economizing to the point where small business can't build a decent customer base. Without fully reversing the trend, we proved in the '90s that even if we reduced it a bit, everybody (including the wealthy) benefited. We had the biggest boom in history. The wealthy got upset that life wasn't nasty for most people, which meant that they weren't as special any more, so they backed a candidate who promised to return us to the mess, only more so. And delivered on that promise, too; the near-wreck of the economy was predictable from Bush's campaign speeches in 2000. (I know; I predicted it.) The thing is, the use of the whole government to concentrate wealth means most people are in fact overtaxed compared to what they get from the government. It turns out to be easy to promise them tax cuts, and they'll ignore the fact that the benefits of those tax cuts go almost entirely to the wealthy. The TEA (as in "Taxed Enough Already) Party has everything right except for figuring out who's responsible and how it could be fixed: they're mad about the right things, just picking the wrong solutions. The silliest part of this is the anointing of Richard Armey as a great deficit hawk. In the mid-'90s, he made speeches about the horror of Clinton's "spiraling surpluses." At that point the Clinton administration barely threatened to put a tiny dent in the piled-up debt from the Reagan-Bush era. Richard Armey was already demanding a return to the pattern of increasing deficit spending forever, with no plan to ever get out of the debt. What's beneath this is the discovery that economics is just complicated enough that people will believe almost anything you say about it, so you can just lie about what makes sense. If it sounds stupid, they'll just believe that's the way economies work.

Debi Debi
a million.) How is the equality in Canada? (women individuals's rights, gay rights, variety..?) stressful to declare. Canada is extra tolerant. 2.) Is the government a lot distinctive from united statesa.? you have the domicile and the Senate. we've the domicile of Commons and a Senate that does no longer something. So incredibly in easy terms one physique passes all the expenses. To rule the PM is at once the chief of the main helpful social gathering unlike united statesa.. hence government works a lot extra effective. 3.) Is there something I must comprehend that could make shifting there a foul theory? That relies upon on what you prefer. 4.) Is the preparation to any extent further beneficial or worse than united statesa.? If I even have toddlers. preparation is extremely stable in Canada. 5.) Are the living circumstances any distinctive? less warm in iciness on regular. 6.) something I must comprehend? Taxes are a lot larger right here yet you get a lot extra on your funds. well being care is roofed by the government.
👍 110 | 👎 0

Debi Originally Answered: What is the difference between grade 10 math applied and academic in canada?
it would be better for you to study seperately, because first of all the grade ten math exam for applied is open book. at least in my school, second, they don't go anywhere near quadratics. which is probably the most important part of the academic course, i took academic and failed, but i've put in all my effort so when it comes to content i know exactly what i'm talking about. plus my friend took applied and she could never help me with homework because their work was really different. it would however be good for you to study with her as well because that's a little bit more practice hope this helps :)
Debi Originally Answered: What is the difference between grade 10 math applied and academic in canada?
I don't think you should study with her, as applied is quite different than academic. Academic takes subjects much further than applied and is for students with an 80+ average. Applied learns the same things but is much more basic. Stick with studying your own material as it would probably be too difficult for her and too easy for you. :)

If you have your own answer to the question journal and article difference, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.