If an unmarried person in Montreal, without children, is making $300 per week, before taxes, what is his/her takehome pay likely to be? How about if making $250?
Thanks for the replies.
Thanks for the replies.
maybe rumple is an american. in the usa it makes a difference.bond_james_bond said:why should marital status and number of children be relevant to the amount of taxes you pay?
rumpleforeskiin said:If an unmarried person in Montreal, without children, is making $300 per week, before taxes, what is his/her takehome pay likely to be? How about if making $250?
Thanks for the replies.
bond_james_bond said:why should marital status and number of children be relevant to the amount of taxes you pay?
bond_james_bond said:i just don't see why, in a supposedly free country, certain personal lifestyle choices are rewarded by the government
For 2008 the figures would be 267$ for 300$ gross and 232$ for 250$ gross. Figures willl change a bit in 2009.rumpleforeskiin said:If an unmarried person in Montreal, without children, is making $300 per week, before taxes, what is his/her takehome pay likely to be? How about if making $250?
Thanks for the replies.
The Ernst and Young calculator linked to above suggests 277$ and 241$.MG_mtl said:For 2008 the figures would be 267$ for 300$ gross and 232$ for 250$ gross. Figures willl change a bit in 2009.
bond_james_bond said:sorry
i just don't see why, in a supposedly free country, certain personal lifestyle choices are rewarded by the government
YouVantOption said:They are looking to increase the tax-base by populating. Revenge of the womb, as it were.
I'll leave the 'supposedly free country' alone for the moment. Sounds like an entirely different thread.