Talk:Income tax in Canada

Huge project

This article is potentially a huge project that will take a great deal of time to do properly. The lack of detail is a bit embarassing to me as a Canadian. I will start adding to it as I have time. Taxee 21:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Good for you.

Removed "* income used to pay interest on loans used for the purpose of taxable business investment." Strictly speaking, this is not true; interest on loans is deducted from taxable income, which can have important implications in certain circumstances. This is true of many of the "non-taxable" forms of income, however, and should be clarified here. --Gregalton 18:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

ToDo

Here is a list of things you think we should do! Add what you think! --CyclePat 19:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Capital gains and income

I have restored the reference to capital gains from a principal residence not being taxed which had been removed on the basis that a capital gain is not income. Capital gains are taxed under the Income Tax Act as part of a person's income for the year. They do have special treatment -- only 50% of the gain is included in taxable income. Ground Zero | t 20:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Fiscal Year and Sources

The second sentnece refers to "last fiscal year". Unless we can guarantee updating this every year, I suggest we insert the actual year we mean. Is it fiscal 2005 or 2006? The "three times as much" from personal vs corporate needs a source. Bielle 16:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Income not taxed

Is the "Working income tax benefit" taxed, and if not, please add it to the appropriate list. Deet (talk) 12:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

History and Background?

I'm not personally knowledgeable enough to make the edits, but I think it would be good if there were some information here on the history of the tax system in Canada. As it stands, I think the article is leaning heavily towards being more of a user's manual for navigating the Canadian tax system. Any history buffs out there who can help make the changes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.59.86 (talk) 08:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Discrepancy

Hmm there seems to be some discrepancy between the Government's page and the H&R block page regarding Federal tax rates for 2009. I've put in the government version, but this doesn't give the minimum cutoff for having to start paying taxes... TastyCakes (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Spreadsheet Formulas

I contributed some useful spreadsheet formulae to this article to aid in applying the latest tax table data, but the edit were reverted without a legitimate argument for doing so. We should hash this out since these formulae may be very helpful to the readers. --Iwoj (talk) 02:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Simple realy, have a read of WP:NOTHOWTO and you will see that WP is NOT an instruction manual on how to do things. Mtking ^(edits) 02:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, your edits don't render properly; they are not wiki markup or HTML.  Hazard-SJ  ±  02:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The "instruction manual" argument is unclear as it contains no provisions against formulae or computer source code. I could argue that the whole article is a "how to" on paying income tax in Canada. The spreadsheet formulae provided are sufficiently generic that they will run in many different software packages, including several open source systems.

With regards to the formatting: the edits contain the valid HTML/WikiMarkup <code> tag as noted on in Help:Wiki_markup#Text_formatting. Is there something you're seeing that I'm not? --Iwoj (talk) 03:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your analysis, this article covers more than how to pay income taxes in Canada, also I believe WP:NOTHOWTO does cover this sort of content in articles like this. Mtking ^(edits) 03:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

So you agree that this article is, amongst other things, a "how to" for paying income taxes in Canada. You say "you believe" that WP:NOTHOWTO covers this sort of content, but you don't back up your belief. So far there has not yet been a single specific argument against the edit that I've made. Linking to another document is not an argument. You've got to cite some text. --Iwoj (talk) 04:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

No I don't. Mtking ^(edits) 04:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll do it then. The guide you link to (WP:NOTHOWTO) says "an article should not read like a 'how-to' style owners manual, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes." Which of these things do you believe that this article is similar to? --Iwoj (talk) 04:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:ACCESS.  Hazard-SJ  ±  04:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure which section of this document you are referring to. Could you be more specific? It seems to me that including a spreadsheet formula would actually make this Wikipedia article more accessible to users with disabilities since they could make use of the tax info with a single copy-paste action. --Iwoj (talk) 05:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the formulae do not belong in an encyclopedia article, and that this edit violates WP:NOTHOWTO. Furthermore, it appears to me that User:Iwoj has violate WP:3RR. I think we should assume that s/he was not aware of the Wikipedia policy on reverting, and trust that s/he will not continue to to try to force this material into the article over the objections of other editors. The article should be left as it was before Iwoj's first edit, pending the discussion of the outcome. Iwoj (or another editor) may choose to seek input from other users by posting a note at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board or another discussion board. Ground Zero | t 10:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

There are many Wikipedia pages that have formulae, so the existence of such is not a violation. If the edit violates WP:NOTHOWTO, then please back up your claim. I have read the document thoroughly and posted the clause in question above. If you or anyone else can provide a clear argument for why my edit violates this rule, I'll back off. Otherwise I see no reason not to revive my edit. (Thanks for alerting me to the 3 Revert Rule. I'll be conscious of this going forward.) --Iwoj (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

There are many pages which have formula/formulae, but none that I can recall which have those formulas written using spreadsheet notation. In fact, pseudo-code is generally considered preferable to code, except with respect to articles on the specific computer language in question. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Many Wikipedia articles have spreadsheet formulae: Formula, Income_inequality_metrics, Reactive_programming, Permutation, Mortgage_calculator... --Iwoj (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I read the first part of WP:NOTHOWTO as being relevant: "Instruction manuals... an article should not read like a "how-to" style owners manual, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes." Providing the formulae to tell readers how to set up a spreadsheet fall into this category. Furthermore, you do not provide a reliable source for these formulae. How do we know they are right? And no, it isn't acceptable to say "try them out for yourself". Verifiability is a key Wikipedia principle. Finally, the presence of violations of Wikipedia style and policies in other articles is not a justification for adding one here, any more than the presence of spelling errors, POV, libel or factual errors in Wikipedia articles is a justification for adding them here. We should be trying to find opportunities to improve Wikipedia articles by bringing them in line with Wikipedia policies and style, rather than for opportunities to violate them. Ground Zero | t 01:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

If providing a formula is like an instruction manual, then you would have to object to the hundreds of Wikipedia articles with mathematical formulae and software code. These are also like instructions on how to calculate things. Almost none of these have citations. I understand the WP:NOTHOWTO document as warning against a whole article reading like an instruction manual. That's clearly not the case here. --Iwoj (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't have to object to anything. What is at issue here is that several editors object to include spreadsheet formulae in this article. I cannot imagine any article in which a spreadsheet formula would be appropriate, but I can see how mathematical formulae would be appropriate or necessary to explain certain concepts. The other articles should be discussed on those talk pages. Ground Zero | t 02:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The fact that several editor disagree with my edit doesn't make them right. What we're trying to do here is develop the reasoning behind your objections to spreadsheet formulae in Wikipedia. A single spreadsheet calculation is not a "how-to" guide. Are you objecting because spreadsheet formulae are not as universal as mathematical formulae? --Iwoj (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's also try to develop you're reasoning for inclusion of spreadsheet formulae, given that other editors believe that they do not belong. The absence of a specific prohibition against something does not imply that it is appropriate. The spreadsheet formulae qualify as instructions -- how to set up a spreadsheet to calculate income tax. You have also not addressed the concerns raised under WP:ACCESS and WP:V or WP:RS. Finally, I have proposed a solution below that would make this information available while addressing the concerns that have been raised by other editors. Is there a reason why you are not willing to accept this solution? Ground Zero | t 01:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

A single spreadsheet formula is not a "how-to" guide for setting up a tax calculation system. It is *one step* in a complex set of business and accounting practices. A "how-to" guide contains many steps, as you can see from the structure of the wiki:how site you suggested. I don't want to write a how-to guide.

The reason for its inclusion is simple: to clarify the calculation of income tax. No one should need a how-to guide when one simple formula will do. I imagine that the majority of the people reading this article are just trying to calculate or predict their taxes. I would wager that many people would find this formula both useful and highly clarifying.

With regard to the cases against my contribution brought up by other editors, I have given points in defence of the "how-to" concern (WP:NOTHOWTO), I have written about how a formula would actually improve accessibility issues by simplifying and reducing cutting-and-pasting (WP:ACCESS). The only remaining point is the concern about sources and verifiability (WP:V & WP:RS). That's a fair question, and I mentioned that almost no other mathematical formulae in Wikipedia are provided with citations. I firmly assert that the inclusion of a one-line formula for calculating income tax in a generic spreadsheet notation falls neatly within the "routine calculations" provision of the Wikipedia Manual of Style: WP:NOR --Iwoj (talk) 05:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, WP:V says:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. To show that it is not original research, all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question, but in practice you do not need to attribute everything. This policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material."

As the spreadsheet formulae you added have been challenged, they must be attributed to a reliable source that directly supports the material. That there are other formulae in Wikipedia that are not cited does not exempt you this requirement. Your edit has been challenged, so you must provide a citation for this material.

Your reason why the majority of people read this article is speculation. I believe that people will read this article to get a general understanding of income taxation in Canada, and that they will consult other, more reliable sources for information on how to calculate their taxes, such as the Canada Revenue Agency website or a tax preparer or software. Links are provided at the bottom of the page.

Your formulae will not help people calculate or predict their taxes. In fact, they are incorrect and only partial calculations that will mislead people:

1. "Gross income" is not a concept used in Canadian income taxation. Tax is calculated on taxable income, not gross income. Taxable income is an amount that is generally less than net income. Note that "net" and "gross" men the opposite things. You can learn this by reading the article that you are trying to edit.
2. Your formulae do not include any of the deductions that people commonly use (e.g., RRSP contributions, child care care expenses....)
3. Your formulae do not include and of the non-refundable tax credits people commonly use (e.g., the basic personal amount that all taxpayers can claim, EI and CPP contributions, charitable donations, medical expenses, disability expenses, public transit passes....)
4. Your formulae include provincial income tax only in British Columbia, and not in the provinces and territories where 90% of Canadians live.
5. Your formulae do not include and of the refundable tax credits people commonly use (e.g., provincial sales and property tax credits).

Finally, even if you had included formulae that were not incorrect and misleading, the purpose of a Wikipedia article is not to teach people how to calculate or predict their income tax. That is what wiki:how is for. Ground Zero | t 10:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Schooled. There's still no convincing argument here for why this is a "how-to," but on the grounds of verifiability you're quite right. Thanks for the specifics and apologies for dragging this out. The formula may be incomplete but it is worth correcting. I'll admit that according to Wikipedia it probably is "original research." I don't think wiki:how is the right place for this, but I'll look around. --Iwoj (talk) 09:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

A solution

Perhaps the best way forward would be for you to put this information in wiki:how, and then include a link in the external links section of this article. That way, readers get access to the information that you want to provide, but the material that several editors believe doesn't belong here doesn't go into the article. Win-win, I think. Ground Zero | t 11:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Married status

Apparently it's not allowed in Canada for a married couple to file a single tax return; everyone files individually? [1] If so, that should be mentioned in the article, as it's unusual for U.S. readers. -- Beland (talk) 02:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Chart Missing functionality

Has anyone else questioned why the chart shown on this page is solely just text-based? I have to wonder why the chart is missing functionality that is commonplace on other charts. More specifically, the chart lacks the ability to sort the listings by headings either in ascending or descending order. (I.E: Sorting the data in the income tax chart by tax rate, in descending order to yield a list of tax rates by country that are sorted by tax rate, from highest to lowest.

I am fully willing to complete any work that would be required to switch the chart's format. I feel that this is a feature that is incredibly convenient to users, and I feel that there is no logical reason for this functionality to not be in place. Please explain if I happen to be mistaken, in which case I offer my sincere apologies on the matter. - Jakey(99.249.255.137 (talk) 03:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC))

In addition to what I have recently posted in this discussion, I have found the term or 'class' for what I have described. Elsewhere, the chart (more commonly known as a 'Table') is a 'class' with the term 'wikitable sortable'. I plan to convert the current table into the sortable wikitable format, and then await some input from others to confirm whether it is actually warranted. - Jakey(99.249.255.137 (talk) 03:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC))

Yet another update. Upon looking in to the mechanics of such 'charts', 'tables' and 'sortable wikitables', I've come to the realization that the personal income tax chart previously mentioned was written based on another format separate from the tables and sortable tables I am familiar with. I have no problem admitting my lack of experience in editing the pages of Wikipedia, but I actively learn as much as I can. I must also add that I take special precaution in regards to publishing edits, often creating an edit, revising it, and then finally waiting for some feedback on it before publishing. In lieu of this practice/precaution, I ask that one or more of you corroborate with me and my suggestions for modifying the personal income 'table'. More specifically, I seek to learn what format of 'table' or 'chart' is featured here, the specific differences between it and various other formats. I also would like to explore the possibility of converting the table.

Additionally, as I read further and build on my understanding of page formatting, the need for corroboration is likely to atrophy and die. - Jakey (99.249.255.137 (talk) 04:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC))

Reference #2

The link appears to be broken, at least on mobile. 100.35.27.239 (talk) 02:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. Mindmatrix 12:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)