![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an imageorphotographofIncome tax in Canadabeincluded in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Canada may be able to help! The Free Image Search ToolorOpenverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. | Upload |
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)Reply
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)Reply
Here is a list of things you think we should do! Add what you think! --CyclePat 19:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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))Reply
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))Reply
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))Reply
The link appears to be broken, at least on mobile. 100.35.27.239 (talk) 02:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)Reply