The Money Mustache Community
Learning, Sharing, and Teaching => Investor Alley => Topic started by: Kashmani on October 20, 2015, 06:40:31 AM
-
As I am facing a Facebook feed full of happy friends who laud the overwhelming Liberal win last night, I need to get the following off my chest under the cover of anonymity:
Goodbye income-splitting, TFSA limit increase and small business tax cut. It was nice to have you while you lasted. I will acknowledge grave faults in the Conservative regime, and I will concede that Bill C-51 was deeply flawed. Except I never really cared. To use MMM's word, all of those issues are outside my "sphere of influence" and I could not get worked up over them. In a world where everyone focused on what to do about terrorism and whether or not people should be able to wear niqabs in public, I appreciated the simple fiscal management tools that actually affected me. I appreciated not being judged for having a stay-at-home spouse and punished with policy tools that suggest that women only contribute to society if they are in the labour force. I appreciated not being treated as a helpless cog that needs to be provided with a government pension at age 65 but as someone with the power to sock away money throughout my working years. And I f***ing well appreciated not being derides as "rich" simply for working like a dog the past fifteen years, with hardly more than three or four two-day weekends per year, while other people enjoyed their 37.5-hour work weeks and claim that I need to be more highly taxed to support them.
From an overriding policy perspective, maybe the outcome last night was a good result. But for me, it is sure as hell expensive.
Thank you for allowing me this rant. Feeling much better.
-
I feel you! I am in the USA and terrified if another liberal wins the office, especially Sanders! I rather be responsible for my own money, because history has proved that the Government cannot handle it better than me.
-
are you sure it would change? I'm comparing it to US politics because that's what I know... but the party in charge doesn't really get much done... look at healthcare, been 5 years since aca became law, and they still want to get rid of it >.>
no idea if canada is different... up until the party changed, I thought they had term limits there but apparently they dont
unlike killer above,I rather a liberal in charge though :D sure you get hit by taxes, but we got enough tax shelters/deductions. I just feel like liberals will grow economy better so that in term increases the earnings. Just need it to out pace the tax hit or at least come out even
-
While I liked some Con stuff, I thing you're raging about too little - being punished for having a stay at home spouse? The FTC was capped at what, $2k. You should not be able to take two people who are married, and simply add all income and double all brackets and allowances. If you can afford for your spouse to be at home, good for you - most people cannot.
Not sure how much you're earning but damn, being in the 50% bracket MAKES you.. I won't say rich because clearly it's possible to spend all that money (and more).. let's say in an enviable position.
If it's so wonderful at lower brackets, you are of course free to stop doing what you're doing and apply for jobs at Tim's or Walmart.
I agree that OAS should not be rolled back to 65. The TFSA benefits me but honestly, with the current setup, it's a lot of revenue not going to pay for roads/hospitals/etc so I am sad but ok with it going back to $5.5k
-
I couldn't be happier.
If the TFSA gets rolled back and I have to pay more taxes I am 100% fine with that. I never had an issue paying taxes I just want them to towards stuff I care about. Despite being a retired military officer F35 fighter jets were not on my wish list.
I don't expect there will be much of an impact on my FIRE plans as some things that change will help me and some will hurt me. It will probably be a wash.
But at least I can live in a Canada that I am not embarrassed by when the gov't speaks.
The deficit dragon — slain or sleeping?
Source = http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-harper-political-obit-1.3273677
His defining zig-zag, for many voters, was the recession budget of 2009. As the financial winds howled in the fall of 2008, he said, "We're not running a deficit ... that's our policy. We're not going into deficit."
Six weeks later, the first whopper of a deficit was in the works. By spring, it was over $50 billion.
So, yeah, that was one doozy of a flip-flop. And so?
Sometimes, a flip-flop can be a wonderful thing. The opposition complained that it hadn't happened sooner. Rather than being a black mark on Harper's record, it's now seen as simply a necessity in the face of an economic hurricane.
Mobile users, follow the live blog here
And the five more deficits that followed? Those enabled Harper to boast that he shoveled taxpayers' money out the door faster than any government in history.
Which, of course, was not what Conservatives thought they were voting for. They just had to hold their noses while $50 million was steered into Treasury Board President Tony Clement's central Ontario riding for "border infrastructure."
Oops! It's nowhere near the border.
So Harper could ladle pork like a Liberal. Better, in fact. Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin reduced the national debt by $90 billion and left a budgetary surplus of $14 billion. Harper's six deficits added $150 billion to the national debt.
In Canada and the US the progressive gov'ts always get the tax and spend rap yet time and time again they are more fiscally responsible than the conservatives in power. It's a total PR spin job by the conservatives.
-
Honestly in the USA, it's Congress that controls it all. Yes, the president can do some executives orders and veto stuff, but even congress can override that.
Overall, I care more about my local government than I do national.
-
Considering taxes and child benefit only, how does my situation will change? I roughtly estimate the Liberal's plan to return 1,500$ to 2,000$ more/year
My income: 80k$(gross), 65k$(net)
DW's income: 30k$, 28k$(net)
2 children (8 and 12 years old)
We will loose the income splitting advantage but not that much considering my income taxes will drop a bit, maybe few hundreds?
Our child benefit will increase by a couple thousands (2.250$?) I don't know?
If I summ all this, we may benefit a few grants
-
Well if Canada's liberal govt works, maybe it will pickup in the US... if not, we'll still try to make it work and just blame it failing in Canada on the moose or something
-
Considering taxes and child benefit only, how does my situation will change? I roughtly estimate the Liberal's plan to return 1,500$ to 2,000$ more/year
My income: 80k$(gross), 65k$(net)
DW's income: 30k$, 28k$(net)
2 children (8 and 12 years old)
We will loose the income splitting advantage but not that much considering my income taxes will drop a bit, maybe few hundreds?
Our child benefit will increase by a couple thousands (2.250$?) I don't know?
If I summ all this, we may benefit a few grants
You have children. Are you not worried about his plan to deficit spend by Billions for next few years and add to the national debt ? It'll be your children burdened by that debt.
-
While I didn't vote Conservative, the thing that scares me most about the Liberal agenda --> "Hey, let's spend on infrastructure in exactly the same way Greece did! That's a good idea!" :(
$60 billion?! Who the fuck is going to pay that back? Your kids? You think in 10 years when government has to cut spending to pay back a giant loan people are going to embrace it then? Fuck no. 10 years of deficits plus interest. ...Man alive. People who spend more than they earn over a decade always end up in the shit.
-
Considering taxes and child benefit only, how does my situation will change? I roughtly estimate the Liberal's plan to return 1,500$ to 2,000$ more/year
My income: 80k$(gross), 65k$(net)
DW's income: 30k$, 28k$(net)
2 children (8 and 12 years old)
We will loose the income splitting advantage but not that much considering my income taxes will drop a bit, maybe few hundreds?
Our child benefit will increase by a couple thousands (2.250$?) I don't know?
If I summ all this, we may benefit a few grants
You have children. Are you not worried about his plan to deficit spend by Billions for next few years and add to the national debt ? It'll be your children burdened by that debt.
Yes I am, I voted for the Conservatives and they even got re-elected in my riding. How on earth a social policy can't be done while keeping a balanced budget? Now, the Canada is going to face big deficits again, I'm happy if at least a part of that borrowed money fall into my pockets since I know how to handle it (repay our remaining mortgage within 4 years, continue to max out the RRSPs and RESP etc). Most middle class earners will just buy a new F-150 or head south more often to burn it down. Sad but It's outside my circle of control!!
-
OK - I know I posted this in a parallel thread but I am new to Canada and I am just not 'getting it'. Can someone please explain to me - as you might to a 8 or 10 year old - why reducing the TFSA benefits would be good for Canada.
From my limited perspective - I just became eligible for TFSA this year, and so I've never known the difference between today's $10k and yesteryear's 5500. As I see it (again in my limited scope) it's like the IRS raising the amount you contribute to a ROTH by several thousand dollars - and something that I'd probably like to see happen. Shouldn't a government encourage its citizens to save money? wouldn't more people with more savings reduce the the financial strain on teh government? How would allowing citizens to put post-tax money into investment accounts be bad?
... I'm obviously missing something here.
-
TFSAs accumulate through your life, with no upper cap limit. Increasing the yearly amount that they accumulate potentially shelters a tremendous amount of money from taxation in the future. If all Canadians make use of this it will affect budgets down the road. If few people make use of this, it will be more used by those of us with means . . . so ends up being a benefit mostly for the rich.
I liked having a 10k TFSA. The election year bribe didn't outweigh distaste for how the Conservatives have been running the country though.
-
OK - I know I posted this in a parallel thread but I am new to Canada and I am just not 'getting it'. Can someone please explain to me - as you might to a 8 or 10 year old - why reducing the TFSA benefits would be good for Canada.
From my limited perspective - I just became eligible for TFSA this year, and so I've never known the difference between today's $10k and yesteryear's 5500. As I see it (again in my limited scope) it's like the IRS raising the amount you contribute to a ROTH by several thousand dollars - and something that I'd probably like to see happen. Shouldn't a government encourage its citizens to save money? wouldn't more people with more savings reduce the the financial strain on teh government? How would allowing citizens to put post-tax money into investment accounts be bad?
... I'm obviously missing something here.
In 30 years the rich/frugal put $300k out of bounds of taxation. If every Canadian did that, basically no tax would be paid in retirement.
Compare to the RRSP which is taxed at your marginal rate, which will be high most likely, when you die. And compared to unregistered where you pay tax on dividends and on capital gains.
-
OK - I know I posted this in a parallel thread but I am new to Canada and I am just not 'getting it'. Can someone please explain to me - as you might to a 8 or 10 year old - why reducing the TFSA benefits would be good for Canada.
From my limited perspective - I just became eligible for TFSA this year, and so I've never known the difference between today's $10k and yesteryear's 5500. As I see it (again in my limited scope) it's like the IRS raising the amount you contribute to a ROTH by several thousand dollars - and something that I'd probably like to see happen. Shouldn't a government encourage its citizens to save money? wouldn't more people with more savings reduce the the financial strain on teh government? How would allowing citizens to put post-tax money into investment accounts be bad?
... I'm obviously missing something here.
My takes on this is: assuming the gov understand that encouraging people to save (instead of spending) is good (not really sure they understand that) they take the guess the savers will continue to save anyway and will be charged (double-whammy) on earned interests, dividend and capital gain forever. The increase from 550 to 10k this year was not that good because they stopped the indexation and the noise it made bring over-reaction to TFSA haters. I would have prefered the 5,500 to be indexed every year forever...
-
First of all, I am completely against pushing OAS back to 65 and increasing CPP premiums at the expense of TFSA. This is just another way of saying people are bad with their finances so the government will take care of their finances for them. What happened to personal responsibility? Life is about choices and I should have more control over my own retirement timeline, not less (this is MMM after all). Plus, if liberals cared about equality they would address this via RRSP which favors high income earners, unlike the TFSA which accumulates at the same rate for all earners and is more beneficial relative to RRSP at lower tax brackets.
However, I also do not agree with the conservative income splitting. Personal taxes should be individual and income splitting is just another way to avoid taxes for some married couples. Again why is the government giving me an incentive to marry a lower earning spouse? Why are they transferring money from a group of people to another group like this?
Finally, the biggest problem with all this is that not everything is about money and taxes. Conservatives are socially backwards and divisive. Time and time again they proved that, which is why I ended up not voting for them. I do love my TFSA but principles are principles.
-
As others have said, it's not just about the money.
I'm single without kids, so I think the tax cut and tfsa reduction will roughly be a wash for me. Better infrastructure will most likely be a net positive for me. Overall, I think I'll end up richer thanks to this election.
I just don't understand why people are against deficits when you can borrow money at extremely low rates and boost your infrastructure.
I'm really glad about this election, and quite excited to see how it goes.
-
However, I also do not agree with the conservative income splitting. Personal taxes should be individual and income splitting is just another way to avoid away taxes for some married couples. Again why is the government giving me an incentive to marry a lower earning spouse?
I am a big fan of income splitting because the current model is disingenuous. All benefits (CCTB, GST credit, etc.) are based on household income, not individual income. Yet income tax is based on individual income. Either recognize that households function as an economic unit (which they realistically do) and tax that unit or deny that households are economic units and give benefits to lower-earning partners. But don't suck and blow.
My other beef is with the way the discussion is framed. Why is the ideal situation that everybody works for money and that income should be split equally between spouses? Is it really better if I took a lower-earning job and my wife would start working? Is the world really better off if we take up two childcare spaces, she takes a job away from someone else that wants it, and the kids see a parent maybe for an hour every day? Sure you can discuss self-actualization and the need for a fulfilling career, but to be frank, if we could afford it I would choose to be a stay-at-home dad in a heartbeat. It escapes me why anyone would choose the corporate world over parenting. Saying that only "rich" people can afford to have a stay-at-home parent seems quite antimustachian. I know many middle-class employees who make it work by living frugally. They have one 10-year old car and gradually repair a fixer-upper, but they make it work. They are also generally the happiest people I know, since their stress level is disproportionately lower than that of two-income couples.
Lastly, I actually believe that marrying lower-income spouses can serve to decrease inequality. See e.g., this article:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/10/how-americas-marriage-crisis-makes-income-inequality-so-much-worse/280056/
-
I just don't understand why people are against deficits when you can borrow money at extremely low rates and boost your infrastructure.
Maybe because debt doesn't disappear overnight ? The money you borrowed at todays extreme low rate will be an incredibly expensive albatross around our necks when interest rates rise again.
-
I just don't understand why people are against deficits when you can borrow money at extremely low rates and boost your infrastructure.
Maybe because debt doesn't disappear overnight ? The money you borrowed at todays extreme low rate will be an incredibly expensive albatross around our children's necks when interest rates rise again.
Fixed that for you in a way that hopefully answers why this is not a problem. :)
-
I just don't understand why people are against deficits when you can borrow money at extremely low rates and boost your infrastructure.
Maybe because debt doesn't disappear overnight ? The money you borrowed at todays extreme low rate will be an incredibly expensive albatross around our necks when interest rates rise again.
If you decide to go in debt for a useful or needed infrastructure, thats a thing (capitalized debt?). When the budget go out of balance year after year because of generous social programs, thats dangerous on the long run (hangover?). In extreme low rates periods, killing the debt is easy!
-
From what I understand a lot of my Canadian friends voted for Justin because of his looks :D
One friend: "I don't really think either Conservative or Liberal will be do all the things that they're promising, and it takes more than one person to fix/screw up a country. So I just voted for the hotter one."
-
However, I also do not agree with the conservative income splitting. Personal taxes should be individual and income splitting is just another way to avoid away taxes for some married couples. Again why is the government giving me an incentive to marry a lower earning spouse?
I am a big fan of income splitting because the current model is disingenuous. All benefits (CCTB, GST credit, etc.) are based on household income, not individual income. Yet income tax is based on individual income. Either recognize that households function as an economic unit (which they realistically do) and tax that unit or deny that households are economic units and give benefits to lower-earning partners. But don't suck and blow.
I was not aware of that but yeah I do agree that everything should be consistent. In general, I believe in keeping things simple so a straightforward tax code that treats personal taxes as literally personal would be the way to go for me.
As for the income disparity among couples, I don't think government should incentivize this subject one way or the other. It's a personal decision that involves personal factors.
-
I just don't understand why people are against deficits when you can borrow money at extremely low rates and boost your infrastructure.
Maybe because debt doesn't disappear overnight ? The money you borrowed at todays extreme low rate will be an incredibly expensive albatross around our necks when interest rates rise again.
No.
There are a few reasons why this doesn't apply to governments like it would to you or me.
Buying infrastructure means more income taxes, and, generally, a higher gdp. If the debt/gdp ratio goes down, our overall debt burden is down.
We'd be a hell of a lot poorer today if previous governments had always made it a point to balance budgets.
Also, the government doesn't borrow on a variable rate basis, it typically emits bonds due in x years. Interest rates rising would only make it easier to kill the debt.
-
But at least I can live in a Canada that I am not embarrassed by when the gov't speaks.
The deficit dragon — slain or sleeping?
Source = http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-harper-political-obit-1.3273677
His defining zig-zag, for many voters, was the recession budget of 2009. As the financial winds howled in the fall of 2008, he said, "We're not running a deficit ... that's our policy. We're not going into deficit."
Six weeks later, the first whopper of a deficit was in the works. By spring, it was over $50 billion.
So, yeah, that was one doozy of a flip-flop. And so?
Sometimes, a flip-flop can be a wonderful thing. The opposition complained that it hadn't happened sooner. Rather than being a black mark on Harper's record, it's now seen as simply a necessity in the face of an economic hurricane.
Mobile users, follow the live blog here
And the five more deficits that followed? Those enabled Harper to boast that he shoveled taxpayers' money out the door faster than any government in history.
Which, of course, was not what Conservatives thought they were voting for. They just had to hold their noses while $50 million was steered into Treasury Board President Tony Clement's central Ontario riding for "border infrastructure."
Oops! It's nowhere near the border.
So Harper could ladle pork like a Liberal. Better, in fact. Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin reduced the national debt by $90 billion and left a budgetary surplus of $14 billion. Harper's six deficits added $150 billion to the national debt.
In Canada and the US the progressive gov'ts always get the tax and spend rap yet time and time again they are more fiscally responsible than the conservatives in power. It's a total PR spin job by the conservatives.
That entire spiel applies exactly to Australia. Except it was the progressives in power during much of that time promising to never go into deficit and then racking up $300 billion in debt @ $50 billion a year.
We've now got conservatives in power who promised to get spending under control but the debt has just passed $400 billion.
Neither side can 'manage' the economy - the economy does what it does, and has good times and bad, and the politicians tinker at the edges, beholden to whatever special interest group is propping them up with donations at any given time.
Some politicians get lucky and all their time in office coincides with global booms. Others are not so lucky.
-
I just don't understand why people are against deficits when you can borrow money at extremely low rates and boost your infrastructure.
Maybe because debt doesn't disappear overnight ? The money you borrowed at todays extreme low rate will be an incredibly expensive albatross around our necks when interest rates rise again.
Also because when you have a ton of money and spend it on projects and things over a decade and then you stop, people shout "austerity measures!" There's no way a government will spend a ton and pay it back later when things are better because there will never be a proper definition of "better".
-
But at least I can live in a Canada that I am not embarrassed by when the gov't speaks.
The deficit dragon — slain or sleeping?
Source = http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-harper-political-obit-1.3273677
His defining zig-zag, for many voters, was the recession budget of 2009. As the financial winds howled in the fall of 2008, he said, "We're not running a deficit ... that's our policy. We're not going into deficit."
Six weeks later, the first whopper of a deficit was in the works. By spring, it was over $50 billion.
So, yeah, that was one doozy of a flip-flop. And so?
Sometimes, a flip-flop can be a wonderful thing. The opposition complained that it hadn't happened sooner. Rather than being a black mark on Harper's record, it's now seen as simply a necessity in the face of an economic hurricane.
Mobile users, follow the live blog here
And the five more deficits that followed? Those enabled Harper to boast that he shoveled taxpayers' money out the door faster than any government in history.
Which, of course, was not what Conservatives thought they were voting for. They just had to hold their noses while $50 million was steered into Treasury Board President Tony Clement's central Ontario riding for "border infrastructure."
Oops! It's nowhere near the border.
So Harper could ladle pork like a Liberal. Better, in fact. Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin reduced the national debt by $90 billion and left a budgetary surplus of $14 billion. Harper's six deficits added $150 billion to the national debt.
In Canada and the US the progressive gov'ts always get the tax and spend rap yet time and time again they are more fiscally responsible than the conservatives in power. It's a total PR spin job by the conservatives.
That entire spiel applies exactly to Australia. Except it was the progressives in power during much of that time promising to never go into deficit and then racking up $300 billion in debt @ $50 billion a year.
We've now got conservatives in power who promised to get spending under control but the debt has just passed $400 billion.
Neither side can 'manage' the economy - the economy does what it does, and has good times and bad, and the politicians tinker at the edges, beholden to whatever special interest group is propping them up with donations at any given time.
Some politicians get lucky and all their time in office coincides with global booms. Others are not so lucky.
It's true that you can't 'manage' the economy. You can do things that minimize economic fallout. For example, our banks are very well regulated. They can't take the kinds of risks that US banks can. This limits the damage that they can do to our economy. When the big US financial crash happened, Canada walked away relatively unscathed because of this.
Harper has been pushing for less financial regulation of Canadian banks the entire time he has been in politics.
-
The Liberal fiscal plan would see "a modest short-term deficit" of less than $10 billion for each of the first three years and then a balanced budget by the 2019-2020 fiscal year.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/multimedia/canada-s-deficits-and-surpluses-1963-to-2015-1.3042571
- From CBC.
More than one economist has pointed out during the election when viewed as a % of GDP there is no difference between spending $10B extra or having a balanced budget. It's all noise and frankly we didn't have balanced budgets for most of the Harper's reign of terror. This last year we only broke even by selling equities at a loss and dipping into a contingency fund that was not meant to balance the budget. It was all smoke and mirrors for the election.
I'm always surprised when people don't "get" the political part of the process. The bottom line economic plans of all 3 parties is the same. How the money gets spent is going to be different.
-
Back to the TFSA. Let's wait and see what "actually" happens. Trudeau has a lot of fish to fry and I would be surprised if the TFSA is at the top of his agenda.
It could well roll along as is. Just keep socking away your money.
-
I keep hearing whispers that there may be one more opportunity for individuals to contribute 10k to their TFSA's in 2016. This would certainly lessen my irritation about the eventual reduction back to $5500...
-
It's true that you can't 'manage' the economy. You can do things that minimize economic fallout. For example, our banks are very well regulated. They can't take the kinds of risks that US banks can. This limits the damage that they can do to our economy. When the big US financial crash happened, Canada walked away relatively unscathed because of this.
When Harper pointed this out during the first debate, I sat bolt upright and yelled, "Did he seriously just take credit for the previous Liberal government's monetary policies?! Policies he argued against at the time?!!"
-
It's true that you can't 'manage' the economy. You can do things that minimize economic fallout. For example, our banks are very well regulated. They can't take the kinds of risks that US banks can. This limits the damage that they can do to our economy. When the big US financial crash happened, Canada walked away relatively unscathed because of this.
When Harper pointed this out during the first debate, I sat bolt upright and yelled, "Did he seriously just take credit for the previous Liberal government's monetary policies?! Policies he argued against at the time?!!"
This seems to be a time-honored political strategy in every location I've lived.
Get into office by targeting the previous administration's initatives. After a year or two in office develop your own "plan" with a new name and new title that looks frighteningly similar to the previous plan, and tout how it will create jobs, generate revenue and make everyone's life better. Claim credit. Get ousted in the next election and fume how the new administration is corrupting "your" policy. Blame them when it doesn't go as planned.
For a Canadian example look at the "plan nord" in Quebec. Originally part of Charet's agenda, it was scrapped by the Party Quebecois before being slowly reintroduced, then scrapped by the Liberals in 2014. Now it's back... maybe?
-
I keep hearing whispers that there may be one more opportunity for individuals to contribute 10k to their TFSA's in 2016. This would certainly lessen my irritation about the eventual reduction back to $5500...
I'd be pretty satisfied with this outcome. Then it would be nice if it went down to $6000 for 2017, and indexed to inflation from there.
-
I keep hearing whispers that there may be one more opportunity for individuals to contribute 10k to their TFSA's in 2016. This would certainly lessen my irritation about the eventual reduction back to $5500...
I'd be pretty satisfied with this outcome. Then it would be nice if it went down to $6000 for 2017, and indexed to inflation from there.
I think the rationale is that the government needs to pass a budget to officially take the $10k limit away, and at this point there's really only two months left in this calendar year. And trying to claw back the $10k room already given would be way too much administrative work. If no budget is passed in 2015 I'm going to contribute $10k on the first business day of 2016.
-
If no budget is passed in 2015 I'm going to contribute $10k on the first business day of 2016.
That was Garth's advice exactly!
I've commented to several of my nephews and nieces, mostly whom voted Liberal that when it comes time to settle your parents estate and the government is the biggest beneficiary of the estate* you'll turn into a frothing at the mouth anti government conservative!
For a bit of election humour 1st two posts here (http://canadianmoneyforum.com/showthread.php/59249-Another-use-for-duct-tape/)
*when they collapse the RRPS and have to add it to the income for year
-
If no budget is passed in 2015 I'm going to contribute $10k on the first business day of 2016.
We have our 20k sitting in our HISA right now, waiting for this very opportunity. :)
-
Just check the TFSA website before you contribute:
http://www.tfsa.gc.ca/
The limit was changed before the budget was passed this year because the Gov't had signalled its intent and in a majority situation that was good enough to take action.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/personal-finance/household-finances/confusion-reigns-over-tfsa-account-rules-changes/article24221377/
If the Liberals say they will change the TFSA at the next budget in early 2016 that may be enough for the bureaucrats to change the TFSA limits starting 1 Jan 2016. I don't think the campaign promise is specific enough to trigger any action. It will need to be something specific from the PM or the new Finance Minister that is stated during what's left of 2015.
Like you guys I will drop $10K into my TFSA on 1 Jan 2016 if I can.
-
In the grand scheme of things I think the Libs getting elected will be good for Canadian mustachians. Shouldn't life get easier/better for lower income folks under a Liberal government? Don't we all aspire to be relatively low-income post-FIRE?
-
If anyone has $10K they need to stash, I can do it tax free for you. ;)
-
I for one am glad the Conservatives are out. Not that I generally despise Conservatives, in fact I have voted for them before. I will admit that it seems I'm moving further to the "left" as time goes on and the current Conservatives are to blame for that. Of all the popular parties, in their current form they seem to be the most willing to play dirty politics, fear monger, and spin games to get their way.
Balanced budget: Sorry Harper, but you can spend with the best of them and your track record has proven it. If it wasn't for the Liberals policies in the 90s/00s we would be much worse off and that's a fact.
Niqabs: puulleeeese. This is a garbage topic. Who cares what women wear to citizenship ceremonies. Get them to ID in private to a female official and then they can wrap up and become Canadians with the rest of their family. If someone can become a Canadian in an Affliction t-shirt, they certainly should be able to in a niqab.
Income splitting/family tax credits/high TFSA: Let's be honest Harper, it primarily benefits high income people... like me. As much as I appreciate it, I don't need the help. I wouldn't mind a $10k TFSA if it came with a lifetime cap, but I think it's wrong for a two income family to be able to save more than $800k completely tax free over a 40 year career. In fact, $20k per year for 40 years at 6% return will get you almost $3.5M. I don't think savers should be punished, but RRSPs, low capital gains tax policies, dividend tax policies, a smaller TFSA, and myriad of other tools generally accessible only to higher income earners mean we will still have very comfortable retirements.
If any government were serious about helping lower income families I've got a simple idea: 1) completely toss the current plan; 2) increase the basic personal exemption to $17500 and index from there; 3) implement a generous but completely taxable monthly child allowance; and 4) allow all child care expenses to be deducted from taxable income of the higher earning parent.
Terrorist passports: I'm sorry Harper but the Supreme Court will never let you take citizenship's away from Canadian citizens and you know it. Unfortunately, it is already quite difficult to deport convicted criminals who are permanent residents. This whole scheme is pure electioneering plain and simple. Much like your minimum sentencing legislation and other stupid laws you've put into place only to have the Supreme Court cut them down to reality.
Barbaric culture tip line: Again another piece of Harper election crap. Police can only do something about "barbaric" issues if there is a criminal offence and things like honor killings, genital mutilation, etc are already crimes. We already have a tip line... it's called 9-1-1 and it has effectively called police to investigate crimes for years. Again this is simply a Conservative ploy to pit right wing Canadians against Muslims and I for one won't vote for it. The only guy at work that actually openly supported this is the same guy that believes Muslims will implement sharia law in Canada by 2050 because by that time Muslims will have taken over our country. Give me a break.
I could go on, but that's my rant. I'm happy Harper is gone. I hope the Cons will pick a more progressive and transparent leader who is more in touch with reality. For now I will gladly vote to pay an extra few hundred dollars a year in taxes if it means we will have a friendly, open government who doesn't make a point of alienating portions of our population to score a few cheap votes.
Now if I was prime minister...
-
I for one am glad the Conservatives are out. Not that I generally despise Conservatives, in fact I have voted for them before. I will admit that it seems I'm moving further to the "left" as time goes on and the current Conservatives are to blame for that. Of all the popular parties, in their current form they seem to be the most willing to play dirty politics, fear monger, and spin games to get their way.
Balanced budget: Sorry Harper, but you can spend with the best of them and your track record has proven it. If it wasn't for the Liberals policies in the 90s/00s we would be much worse off and that's a fact.
Niqabs: puulleeeese. This is a garbage topic. Who cares what women wear to citizenship ceremonies. Get them to ID in private to a female official and then they can wrap up and become Canadians with the rest of their family. If someone can become a Canadian in an Affliction t-shirt, they certainly should be able to in a niqab.
Income splitting/family tax credits/high TFSA: Let's be honest Harper, it primarily benefits high income people... like me. As much as I appreciate it, I don't need the help. I wouldn't mind a $10k TFSA if it came with a lifetime cap, but I think it's wrong for a two income family to be able to save more than $800k completely tax free over a 40 year career. In fact, $20k per year for 40 years at 6% return will get you almost $3.5M. I don't think savers should be punished, but RRSPs, low capital gains tax policies, dividend tax policies, a smaller TFSA, and myriad of other tools generally accessible only to higher income earners mean we will still have very comfortable retirements.
If any government were serious about helping lower income families I've got a simple idea: 1) completely toss the current plan; 2) increase the basic personal exemption to $17500 and index from there; 3) implement a generous but completely taxable monthly child allowance; and 4) allow all child care expenses to be deducted from taxable income of the higher earning parent.
Terrorist passports: I'm sorry Harper but the Supreme Court will never let you take citizenship's away from Canadian citizens and you know it. Unfortunately, it is already quite difficult to deport convicted criminals who are permanent residents. This whole scheme is pure electioneering plain and simple. Much like your minimum sentencing legislation and other stupid laws you've put into place only to have the Supreme Court cut them down to reality.
Barbaric culture tip line: Again another piece of Harper election crap. Police can only do something about "barbaric" issues if there is a criminal offence and things like honor killings, genital mutilation, etc are already crimes. We already have a tip line... it's called 9-1-1 and it has effectively called police to investigate crimes for years. Again this is simply a Conservative ploy to pit right wing Canadians against Muslims and I for one won't vote for it. The only guy at work that actually openly supported this is the same guy that believes Muslims will implement sharia law in Canada by 2050 because by that time Muslims will have taken over our country. Give me a break.
I could go on, but that's my rant. I'm happy Harper is gone. I hope the Cons will pick a more progressive and transparent leader who is more in touch with reality. For now I will gladly vote to pay an extra few hundred dollars a year in taxes if it means we will have a friendly, open government who doesn't make a point of alienating portions of our population to score a few cheap votes.
Now if I was prime minister...
Nice pitch Tuxedo!
Personnaly, I may only miss the income splitting because we earn $30k/$80k (gross) and I wonder why I should pay more taxes than another couple at $55k/$55k in the exact same situation...
I admit I voted for the Cons because the guy in my riding does a great job but I'm glad the Liberals won the majority! Just hope the Cons will get rid of the Reform wing some day to be ready for the next time we will need another change.
Trudeau will make many mistakes down the road but he's full of energy and it's been a while Canada need something else than a gray PM
-
I wonder why I should pay more taxes than another couple at $55k/$55k in the exact same situation...
Because taxation is individual, not family. Is it fair? What if our MIL moved in with us, should we do a 3-way split?
The way the Cons did it was half-arsed, the whole system is half arsed - IF you have children, though, you can argue you are more of a 'unit' than just two people living together - there are shared expenses for the children (won't somebody think of the children!).
All sides are, or rather campaigned on, throwing money at 'middle class families' which is a crock, IMHO.
/shrug
-
I wonder why I should pay more taxes than another couple at $55k/$55k in the exact same situation...
Because taxation is individual, not family. Is it fair? What if our MIL moved in with us, should we do a 3-way split?
The way the Cons did it was half-arsed, the whole system is half arsed - IF you have children, though, you can argue you are more of a 'unit' than just two people living together - there are shared expenses for the children (won't somebody think of the children!).
All sides are, or rather campaigned on, throwing money at 'middle class families' which is a crock, IMHO.
/shrug
Just because many (most) of the benefits and exemptions are based on the total of both "individuals" in the household (MIL not included)
That said, the -1.5% taxe rate for $45k-$90k$ earners will mostly offset my tax splitting advantage if not better!
-
Canada will benefit enormously from infrastructure projects, even if it requires more deficit spending to do so. The government can pay as little as 1.5% of interest on 10 year bonds. Infrastructure improvements creates economic benefits decades into the future. Moreover, infrastructure spending will boost demand, it's like revving up a stalling engine. Right now the economic engine in Canada is stalling. The spending will increase the G.D.P. which in turn leads to increases in taxes available. The more important number is Debt/GDP ratio.
What vision for infrastructure spending is there? A maglev train connecting Toronto and Montreal?
-
Before we build a maglev train anywhere, can Toronto get a transit system that works in any of the northern, north eastern, or north western parts of the city first?
-
Like others have noted here, some things are more important to me than personal financial gain, and I voted accordingly.
The TFSA also benefits people (at least in BC) with disabilities, the higher the better. And I would like income-splitting if it applied to any two people in the family. However, that a couple would benefit, but a sole-parent family wouldn't, is silly to me. Finally, I grapple with policies that force low-income people in or out of relationships, though in my case the government's requirement that I hand off my child care expenses to a third-party helped me make a good decision in that vein.
Stuff is complex. I'm hopeful that with a country sporting four colours, but mostly red, more conversations will be had and nuances considered.
-
I would like income-splitting ... but a sole-parent family wouldn't, is silly to me.
I think allowing the super rich to split their income with their children to avoid tax might encourage them to breed
-
I would like income-splitting ... but a sole-parent family wouldn't, is silly to me.
I think allowing the super rich to split their income with their children to avoid tax might encourage them to breed
Just like the amount of childcare benefit might encourage poor people to breed?
3 kids, $12k income, get another $1200 *a month*.
-
I think allowing the super rich to split their income with their children to avoid tax might encourage them to breed
When I'm PM, it's only split between any *two* members of a family :)
...childcare benefit...3 kids, $12k income, get another $1200 *a month*.
? I get $60/mo for childcare (and it was $0 until Harper's recent UCCB expansion).
-
? I get $60/mo for childcare...
I would also like to know where to sign up for the child goldmine of government handouts. Mine isn't paying out as much as I thought he would . . . :P
-
? I get $60/mo for childcare...
I would also like to know where to sign up for the child goldmine of government handouts. Mine isn't paying out as much as I thought he would . . . :P
Isn't it even cheaper (at least in the short term) to pay couples to not have children in the first place? If so, I'd like to sign up for benefits for the half-a-dozen children my spouse and I haven't had :-P
-
? I get $60/mo for childcare...
I would also like to know where to sign up for the child goldmine of government handouts. Mine isn't paying out as much as I thought he would . . . :P
Isn't it even cheaper (at least in the short term) to pay couples to not have children in the first place? If so, I'd like to sign up for benefits for the half-a-dozen children my spouse and I haven't had :-P
The people who I'd least like to have children tend to also be the ones I'd least like the government to give money too . . . hmm. Tough choices there.
-
I think allowing the super rich to split their income with their children to avoid tax might encourage them to breed
When I'm PM, it's only split between any *two* members of a family :)
...childcare benefit...3 kids, $12k income, get another $1200 *a month*.
? I get $60/mo for childcare (and it was $0 until Harper's recent UCCB expansion).
Sorry, *child* benefit, not childcare.
CCTB + UCCB. And whatever it gets replaced with (CTB?) will probably be a little more generous.
-
While I didn't vote Conservative, the thing that scares me most about the Liberal agenda --> "Hey, let's spend on infrastructure in exactly the same way Greece did! That's a good idea!" :(
$60 billion?! Who the fuck is going to pay that back? Your kids? You think in 10 years when government has to cut spending to pay back a giant loan people are going to embrace it then? Fuck no. 10 years of deficits plus interest. ...Man alive. People who spend more than they earn over a decade always end up in the shit.
I am not really sure why you seem to be raging against the liberals on this one. The conservative government has racked up what $130 billion to the debt and provided no infrastructure, no jobs, no higher wages to show for it. Liberals want to invest in Canada and investments in infrastructure tend to pay off. The issues in Greece are not because of infrastructure spending.
-
While I didn't vote Conservative, the thing that scares me most about the Liberal agenda --> "Hey, let's spend on infrastructure in exactly the same way Greece did! That's a good idea!" :(
$60 billion?! Who the fuck is going to pay that back? Your kids? You think in 10 years when government has to cut spending to pay back a giant loan people are going to embrace it then? Fuck no. 10 years of deficits plus interest. ...Man alive. People who spend more than they earn over a decade always end up in the shit.
I am not really sure why you seem to be raging against the liberals on this one. The conservative government has racked up what $130 billion to the debt and provided no infrastructure, no jobs, no higher wages to show for it. Liberals want to invest in Canada and investments in infrastructure tend to pay off. The issues in Greece are not because of infrastructure spending.
I raged against that spending too! Bailouts for Canadian banks which hadn't suffered the Financial Crisis? Pure insanity.
And yes, the majority of the original Greek debt was from infrastructure spending. Ironically, stuff they bought from Germany. It began with the over-the-top complete country overhaul for the 2004 Summer Olympics. (I've been there, I've seen their subway train infrastructure, airports, etc., and they are BEAUTIFUL!) http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2012-08-02/how-the-2004-olympics-triggered-greeces-decline (http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2012-08-02/how-the-2004-olympics-triggered-greeces-decline)
One of the things I'm raging about it that the infrastructure spending is also being billed primarily as "job creation". The biggest job creation program ever--Canada's equivalent of the USA's "New Deal" to end the Great Depression. First of all, we're not in a depression. Second of all, our unemployment rate is at a historical norm. So, why do emergency measures?
-
All I know is I've been to every province, multiple times - driven coast to coast (including the labrador 'highway') and our infrastructure is brutal. Especially in the larger cities (thinking of Vancouver for example). We definitely need some spending on getting people and goods moving. And with interest rates so incredibly low, now would be the best time.
And you can't really compare with Greece - the have tons of other problems. I just spent most of September there and learned quite a bit about it. They didn't just spend on infrastructure - their monetary problems go back many decades.
-
While I didn't vote Conservative, the thing that scares me most about the Liberal agenda --> "Hey, let's spend on infrastructure in exactly the same way Greece did! That's a good idea!" :(
$60 billion?! Who the fuck is going to pay that back? Your kids? You think in 10 years when government has to cut spending to pay back a giant loan people are going to embrace it then? Fuck no. 10 years of deficits plus interest. ...Man alive. People who spend more than they earn over a decade always end up in the shit.
I am not really sure why you seem to be raging against the liberals on this one. The conservative government has racked up what $130 billion to the debt and provided no infrastructure, no jobs, no higher wages to show for it. Liberals want to invest in Canada and investments in infrastructure tend to pay off. The issues in Greece are not because of infrastructure spending.
I raged against that spending too! Bailouts for Canadian banks which hadn't suffered the Financial Crisis? Pure insanity.
And yes, the majority of the original Greek debt was from infrastructure spending. Ironically, stuff they bought from Germany. It began with the over-the-top complete country overhaul for the 2004 Summer Olympics. (I've been there, I've seen their subway train infrastructure, airports, etc., and they are BEAUTIFUL!) http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2012-08-02/how-the-2004-olympics-triggered-greeces-decline (http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2012-08-02/how-the-2004-olympics-triggered-greeces-decline)
One of the things I'm raging about it that the infrastructure spending is also being billed primarily as "job creation". The biggest job creation program ever--Canada's equivalent of the USA's "New Deal" to end the Great Depression. First of all, we're not in a depression. Second of all, our unemployment rate is at a historical norm. So, why do emergency measures?
True, I suppose I should have said their problems are not entirely based on infrastructure. Its a pretty well known fact that the Olympics for pretty much any host country is a horrible idea. Smart investments in infrastructure is a very good idea. Forget the stadiums which no one uses any more in Greece, the new highways and airport helps Greece out. Especially considering something like 25% or more of their GDP is based on tourism, it makes it easier for people to visit and get around.
I believe a lot of issues with Greece was poor spending choices. Not spending on things which will give a decent return (like stadiums) while also not having a revenue plan to pay back the debt. If your investment in infrastructure does not pay off in more jobs and more taxes then you are a little bit screwed, and that's ignoring the fact Greece was having issues collecting due taxes.
I think Canada is a lot different than Greece, and we are unlikely to fall into the same traps they did.
-
As a family with two high-income earners and two kids, we will not benefit financially from a Liberal government. And I'm okay with that.
Right now, I get $220/month to help with childcare, and assuming they follow through on their promises, that will go down to about $30. I have maxed out my TFSAs and plan to park the $$ there for as long as possible.
But it doesn't make sense to give a family like mine the same benefit that's given to a low-income or single-parent family. It just doesn't.
I'm so freaking happy we are in a new era, and I am interested to see what happens. Given that I work for the feds, I expect to have a first-hand view of the potential changes and I am stoked. I think the entire PS is pretty stoked. The last ten years have been rough.
-
my biggest hope with the current government is that they restore funding to research funding in higher education. A selfish desire to be sure, as this is my field, but in the past ~5 years we've gone from global leader to cringe-worthy in many fields.
-
my biggest hope with the current government is that they restore funding to research funding in higher education. A selfish desire to be sure, as this is my field, but in the past ~5 years we've gone from global leader to cringe-worthy in many fields.
It will be nice if they just left research alone instead of actively 'policing' its findings
-
my biggest hope with the current government is that they restore funding to research funding in higher education. A selfish desire to be sure, as this is my field, but in the past ~5 years we've gone from global leader to cringe-worthy in many fields.
It will be nice if they just left research alone instead of actively 'policing' its findings
agreed. We had to stop actively collaborating with our US colleagues because they couldn't accept the restrictions on the science placed upon our research. Bloody shame - everyone lost.
-
But it doesn't make sense to give a family like mine the same benefit that's given to a low-income or single-parent family. It just doesn't.
The last ten years have been rough.
Yes and yes.
-
Oh, man. Canada Post ceasing the transition to community mailboxes sucks.
Financially it made so much sense. Logistically too.
-
Oh, man. Canada Post ceasing the transition to community mailboxes sucks.
Financially it made so much sense. Logistically too.
Financial impacts? You get dividend cheques in the mail??
-
Oh, man. Canada Post ceasing the transition to community mailboxes sucks.
Financially it made so much sense. Logistically too.
Financial impacts? You get dividend cheques in the mail??
75% of Canada has been told that financially it's not OK to deliver mail to homes. It's odd that the remaining 25% can't join the rest of the country on this, or that home delivery isn't implemented for the whole country. Either outcome makes sense to me. Having first and second class mail services though, is unfair.
-
Community mail boxes make a lot of sense.
The alternative is to put up the price of postage to cover costs, and so fewer people will use it, so the price goes up again .etc.etc
Or the taxpayer ends up subsidizing the delivery of junk mail.
The community mail boxes here are great, they have extra lockers for packages - which is all anyone uses the mail for these days anyway.
-
I'm unaffected by the mailbox issue any which way. I haven't had service to my door for quite a few years except, ironically, in an apartment building in Vancouver! There, the carrier actually came to each floor and delivered it through every individual door! I don't know why we got that.
Basement suite: Despite a distinct address and mailbox, all went through landlord's front door slot, and didn't reach me.
Village: Mail went to post office, which we all walked to.
Townhouse complex: Mailboxes at front of building, a full block from my door.
etc
I've paid for private post box service for many years. Way better than Canada Post's on many counts. It's not frugal, but worth it to me.
Boy would I be mad if I were that dude that "owned" a house and that concrete block got stuck onto the front yard... I get that a strip doesn't come with, but if the front yard I'd purchased, was paying debt on, bought for view, etc, suddenly turned into a cement patch and point of daily visits by many neighbours, boy oh boy... http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/abbotsford-man-angry-at-canada-post-over-giant-hole-in-front-yard-1.3286234 Surely mailboxes there decreases home value, too??
-
Usualy, they use side-yard where I live (Quebec) this mean you got to be on a corner, wich I dont like anyway. Unpleasant for sure, as much as the extra cost for a fence/hedge or extra snow plowed in winter.
-
Oh, man. Canada Post ceasing the transition to community mailboxes sucks.
Financially it made so much sense. Logistically too.
Financial impacts? You get dividend cheques in the mail??
CP is a crown corp. It costs ~ $270 a year to deliver to my door. If they can't raise the price of stamps, who pays for it? The government will have to subsidise it. And where does the government get money? Tax!
I'd rather have the option of paying the $270 directly for the service should I want it, than everyone's tax burden going up to make sure everyone (that currently gets it! Far from everyone in the country!) keeps getting door delivery.
Problem is people bitching and moaning. Things change. Times change. In the UK, there is still Saturday delivery! When I was young, there were *two* postal deliveries a day! So what?
-
We haven't had home delivery for 25 years. I didn't see any of the people who retained theirs protesting on our behalf. All of a sudden it's a crisis when they are going to lose their delivery.
I rather like the community boxes. Ours is tucked up a side street, and has lots of trees around so you barely see it. I don't think it's impacting anyone's property negatively. It helps that we are all considerate, and don't strew junk mail on the ground, etc. When we go away for a few days, I never worry about having someone pick up our mail, and we don't have to be home for small or medium parcel delivery. If the weather is really nasty, we just don't pick up our mail that day. It really is not a big deal.
-
Home delivery is irrelevant to me, but I can ride a bike 200kms in a day without dying.
My mom is ~87 and for her walking a block or two to get her mail is a big deal.
-
My mom is ~87 and for her walking a block or two to get her mail is a big deal.
Yep, I think this is the challenge. How do we meet the needs of people who require home delivery of any goods (food, medicine, mail, etc) for mobility reasons? Some areas have library delivery services for people who are housebound, but not daily. Many grocery stores and pharmacies provide delivery, but many for a fee; community volunteers fill in some of the gaps. Home support for people who need help with bathing, cooking, shopping, etc, has been dramatically reduced over the last 20 years.
If people aren't able to meet their needs independently, should the government provide at-home services? Should the family? Should the person be required to go without? Or move?
If mail delivery is a "social service", it faces the same questions that all other social services do.
This summer, I was on bed rest for a month and for the first time since (a terrible, long) illness in my 20s, I got to live this question. Being that stuck was weird, scary, and very isolating, for sure. I relied primarily on my 10 year old.
-
Home delivery is irrelevant to me, but I can ride a bike 200kms in a day without dying.
My mom is ~87 and for her walking a block or two to get her mail is a big deal.
How does she get food? Does she cook? Do you ever visit? Does anyone visit her regularly?
I mean, I'm sure there will be exemptions and what not for the really old and infirm. If she's living in an old age home, then no problem, mail to right outside her bedroom - at least in the one I've been to. If she's living in her own house, and managing to live, then I'm sure someone picking up her mail a couple of times a week for her in the cold will work just fine - when they drop the groceries off, for example.
It really doesn't seem to make sense to keep what, 5 million homes going with door to door, because a few thousand old people can't walk a couple of blocks. Especially when there are numerous ways of getting those people their mail anyway.
-
My mom is ~87 and for her walking a block or two to get her mail is a big deal.
Yep, I think this is the challenge. How do we meet the needs of people who require home delivery of any goods (food, medicine, mail, etc) for mobility reasons? Some areas have library delivery services for people who are housebound, but not daily. Many grocery stores and pharmacies provide delivery, but many for a fee; community volunteers fill in some of the gaps. Home support for people who need help with bathing, cooking, shopping, etc, has been dramatically reduced over the last 20 years.
If people aren't able to meet their needs independently, should the government provide at-home services? Should the family? Should the person be required to go without? Or move?
If mail delivery is a "social service", it faces the same questions that all other social services do.
This summer, I was on bed rest for a month and for the first time since (a terrible, long) illness in my 20s, I got to live this question. Being that stuck was weird, scary, and very isolating, for sure. I relied primarily on my 10 year old.
It's simple, as I see it: The health system should ensure people not of retirement age are looked after, if necessary. Just like the health system should deal with dental and optical. That is its purpose.
For people older than retirement, government provided old age homes. This should be means tested, meaning that if you get enough money you pay for it, taken out from CPP and OAS and whatnot. If you're decrepit enough to need to live in a home, and cannot afford to pay for it with your own money, you should be taken care of just the same as someone that can; but all bar a small amount of money should go back. Like a couple of hundred dollars a month. And the means testing should include primary residence and TFSA.
-
Remember that by far the majority of people in this country do not get door to door delivery of mail. What do the many decrepit 87 year olds who already have community mail boxes do?
-
My mom is ~87 and for her walking a block or two to get her mail is a big deal.
Yep, I think this is the challenge. How do we meet the needs of people who require home delivery of any goods (food, medicine, mail, etc) for mobility reasons? Some areas have library delivery services for people who are housebound, but not daily. Many grocery stores and pharmacies provide delivery, but many for a fee; community volunteers fill in some of the gaps. Home support for people who need help with bathing, cooking, shopping, etc, has been dramatically reduced over the last 20 years.
If people aren't able to meet their needs independently, should the government provide at-home services? Should the family? Should the person be required to go without? Or move?
If mail delivery is a "social service", it faces the same questions that all other social services do.
This summer, I was on bed rest for a month and for the first time since (a terrible, long) illness in my 20s, I got to live this question. Being that stuck was weird, scary, and very isolating, for sure. I relied primarily on my 10 year old.
It's simple, as I see it: The health system should ensure people not of retirement age are looked after, if necessary. Just like the health system should deal with dental and optical. That is its purpose.
For people older than retirement, government provided old age homes. This should be means tested, meaning that if you get enough money you pay for it, taken out from CPP and OAS and whatnot. If you're decrepit enough to need to live in a home, and cannot afford to pay for it with your own money, you should be taken care of just the same as someone that can; but all bar a small amount of money should go back. Like a couple of hundred dollars a month. And the means testing should include primary residence and TFSA.
At this stage, I would be more scarry to get food and other staples than getting all the junk laying in my mailbox.
-
Home delivery is irrelevant to me, but I can ride a bike 200kms in a day without dying.
My mom is ~87 and for her walking a block or two to get her mail is a big deal.
I can't speak to the distances involved for new installations, but for existing ones here in our city, no one walks even a block for their mail. Ours is maybe 150 feet at the most, and the longest walk might be 10 houses. It can be a bit of a pain in the winter, having to put boots and parkas on to get the mail, but if it's nasty weather, it may be our only outing for the day! I can see the boxes could be a problem in areas in Toronto though - many older neighbourhoods have no boulevards, just very narrow sidewalks. The boxes would obstruct the sidewalks, and no one wants them on their front lawn.
I understand about mobility problems with the elderly - my Mom is 85, with issues. She still manages to get from the ninth floor of her building to the lobby to collect her mail every day. When she can't, a neighbour does it for her. If we couldn't, our neighbours would do it for us. Maybe this is an opportunity to get to know your neighbours?
I think Canada Post was talking about offering home delivery for shut-ins, etc. It just wouldn't be every day. If we needed it, we would be fine with that. We would be fine having our taxes pay for that service for others in need.
-
It really doesn't seem to make sense to keep what, 5 million homes going with door to door, because a few thousand old people can't walk a couple of blocks. Especially when there are numerous ways of getting those people their mail anyway.
I never suggested there were only two options.
She has no relatives close by. She gets by living alone and takes very little from the system to date. The more incidental support she gets the longer she can live at home.
My point is that home mail delivery is of varying importance to different groups of people. It's not a few thousand either. 3.8M people in Canada are over 70 and that proportion of the population is growing.
The longer they can live on their own the cheaper it is for the system.
-
I'd suggest that if someone is incapable of walking a few hundred feet to a mail box once every week or two, they are no longer really capable of living on their own.
-
Canada Post is a corporation created by an Act of Parliament, namely the Canada Post Corporation Act, RSC 1985, c C-10 ("CPC Act"). Although Canada Post is structured as a corporation, it is required to "maintain a corporate identity program ... that reflects the role of the Corporation as an institution of the Government of Canada". CPC Act § 5(2)(e). This seemingly suggests that the legislature intends for Canada Post to be thought of as part of the government. The corporation fulfills a role specifically assigned to the federal government in the constitution, namely the provision of "Postal Service". Constitution Act, 1867, 30 & 31 Vict, c 3, § 91(5). The corporation also enjoys a number of privileges not normally accorded to private corporations, such as a monopoly on certain services (CPC Act § 14) and a general immunity from civil liability (CPC Act § 40(1)).
I think it is likely that Canada Post is part of the "government" within the meaning of § 32(1)(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights of Freedoms (Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11) ("Charter"). This means that it is unlawful for Canada Post's operations to constitute substantive discrimination on the basis of, among other things, age or disability. Charter § 15(1). When making discretionary decisions, government agencies must explicitly "balance[] the Charter values with the statutory objectives". Doré v. Barreau du Québec, 2012 SCC 12 at ¶ 55. Failure to do so in a reasonable manner will result in the actions of the agency being set aside on judicial review. Id at ¶ 7.
Based on the above principles, anybody who is adversely affected by the phasing out of door-to-door delivery is free to file an application in a "court of competent jurisdiction" to obtain "such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just". Charter § 24(1). I do not know whether anybody is yet challenging this phase out, but based on the arguments above in the thread, it sounds like it would be an interesting case to litigate.
-
According to CBC (which is often incorrect, but...) "To qualify for home delivery as Canada Post phases it out, an applicant needs to submit a doctor's assessment." If it doesn't need to give medical details (violating confidentiality) and is just another one of those simple forms with doc check-marking that yep, this person requires home delivery for medical reasons, this sounds okay to me. In this, we're burdening our too-few doctors will yet more forms, and the government will be paying out for that too, but on the whole that seems good to me.
But for anyone who doesn't want to do this, and is able to get around (or have a friend get around) at least once a week, I'd encourage a UPS mailbox vs the potential of Canada Post home delivery at $270/yr. The UPS mailbox service is really awesome, offering so many perks that Canada Post (including via its rented mailboxes) doesn't.
-
I'd suggest that if someone is incapable of walking a few hundred feet to a mail box once every week or two, they are no longer really capable of living on their own.
My GF is a manager with the local health authority. One of their top priorities is to find ways to keep people in their own homes as long as possible because it is so much cheaper and people are happier.
Supporting people at home only makes sense. Getting mail delivered there is one part of that. Canada Post can do that or you can have home support care workers do that for them. Either way you'll pay for it.
Accessing your mail once every 2 weeks is not a reasonable proposition for people that are older and not as good with internet technology. Getting test results or medical appointment info late is just going to lead to expensive negative health outcomes.
-
If you want to keep the 10k TFSA limit, here's a petition you can sign;
https://www.change.org/p/justin-trudeau-keep-the-annual-tfsa-contribution-limit-at-10-000 (https://www.change.org/p/justin-trudeau-keep-the-annual-tfsa-contribution-limit-at-10-000)
Also Garth Turner has some interesting things to say about that change;
http://www.greaterfool.ca/2015/10/26/losing-it-4/ (http://www.greaterfool.ca/2015/10/26/losing-it-4/)
-
As others have said, it's not just about the money.
I'm single without kids, so I think the tax cut and tfsa reduction will roughly be a wash for me. Better infrastructure will most likely be a net positive for me. Overall, I think I'll end up richer thanks to this election.
I just don't understand why people are against deficits when you can borrow money at extremely low rates and boost your infrastructure.
I'm really glad about this election, and quite excited to see how it goes.
Look at what happened in Greece.
Gutted the TFSA is being reduced. Really am. The usual, oh its only for rich people crap is coming out. It really isn't. People who are rich do not care about an extra $4500. But someone who is not wealthy or just middle class sure does!
It feels like people who use TFSAs correctly are being punished, because most people are terrible with money, and don't know how to use their TFSA correctly.
-
I'd suggest that if someone is incapable of walking a few hundred feet to a mail box once every week or two, they are no longer really capable of living on their own.
My GF is a manager with the local health authority. One of their top priorities is to find ways to keep people in their own homes as long as possible because it is so much cheaper and people are happier.
Supporting people at home only makes sense. Getting mail delivered there is one part of that. Canada Post can do that or you can have home support care workers do that for them. Either way you'll pay for it.
Accessing your mail once every 2 weeks is not a reasonable proposition for people that are older and not as good with internet technology. Getting test results or medical appointment info late is just going to lead to expensive negative health outcomes.
I agree with this.
I get my post delivered, and have since I lived in Canada. I didn't realise people don't get their post delivered and have to collect it! Sounds ridiculous to me.
-
I'm unaffected by the mailbox issue any which way. I haven't had service to my door for quite a few years except, ironically, in an apartment building in Vancouver! There, the carrier actually came to each floor and delivered it through every individual door! I don't know why we got that.
Basement suite: Despite a distinct address and mailbox, all went through landlord's front door slot, and didn't reach me.
Village: Mail went to post office, which we all walked to.
Townhouse complex: Mailboxes at front of building, a full block from my door.
etc
I've paid for private post box service for many years. Way better than Canada Post's on many counts. It's not frugal, but worth it to me.
Boy would I be mad if I were that dude that "owned" a house and that concrete block got stuck onto the front yard... I get that a strip doesn't come with, but if the front yard I'd purchased, was paying debt on, bought for view, etc, suddenly turned into a cement patch and point of daily visits by many neighbours, boy oh boy... http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/abbotsford-man-angry-at-canada-post-over-giant-hole-in-front-yard-1.3286234 Surely mailboxes there decreases home value, too??
I would not be happy if my post went to the landlord instead of me!
-
TFSA is officially going back to $5500 and is now indexed again in 2016.
I had hoped they'd let it slide for 2016 at $10K and adjust it for 2017, but no such luck.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/morneau-liberal-taxes-for-middle-class-1.3353939
-
TFSA is officially going back to $5500 and is now indexed again in 2016.
I had hoped they'd let it slide for 2016 at $10K and adjust it for 2017, but no such luck.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/morneau-liberal-taxes-for-middle-class-1.3353939
Thanks for posting. I've been wondering about this lately.
-
TFSA is officially going back to $5500 and is now indexed again in 2016.
I had hoped they'd let it slide for 2016 at $10K and adjust it for 2017, but no such luck.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/morneau-liberal-taxes-for-middle-class-1.3353939
Thanks for posting. I've been wondering about this lately.
NP. There is a tax cut that a lot of us will benefit from in the new budget so that should take some of the sting out of the TFSA change. Since it's indexed again hopefully we'll see it bumped to $6K in the couple years.
-
Darn. Was hoping for my sake that the TFSA continued at 10k/yr. TFSA doesn't change my taxes any which way, but it gives me an option to invest in the lowest-free ETFs. Oh well.
-
Darn. Was hoping for my sake that the TFSA continued at 10k/yr. TFSA doesn't change my taxes any which way, but it gives me an option to invest in the lowest-free ETFs. Oh well.
Why can't you invest in ETFs in a Non-Registered account?
-
Darn. Was hoping for my sake that the TFSA continued at 10k/yr. TFSA doesn't change my taxes any which way, but it gives me an option to invest in the lowest-free ETFs. Oh well.
Why can't you invest in ETFs in a Non-Registered account?
I was about to post the same thing but you beat me to it.
-
TFSA is officially going back to $5500 and is now indexed again in 2016.
I had hoped they'd let it slide for 2016 at $10K and adjust it for 2017, but no such luck.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/morneau-liberal-taxes-for-middle-class-1.3353939
Thanks for posting. I've been wondering about this lately.
NP. There is a tax cut that a lot of us will benefit from in the new budget so that should take some of the sting out of the TFSA change. Since it's indexed again hopefully we'll see it bumped to $6K in the couple years.
Thanks for pointing out that while one hand is taking, the other is giving. Not in a balanced way, but it's not all bad.
-
Well, shit. Maxing out my TFSA wont be the slightest Gauntlet challenge anymore. Bummed, but it does make my TFSA maxed vs RRSP maxed problem go away, even after opening up the wifes first TFSA soon.
-
Why can't you invest in ETFs in a Non-Registered account?
Most people can, just some people can't per rules governing access to some subsidies. Whether I receive them at a given point in time or not, I keep my finances set up so that I can if ever needed. However, subsidies are more valuable than the loss resulting in higher investment fees, so it's okay.
-
TFSA is officially going back to $5500 and is now indexed again in 2016.
I had hoped they'd let it slide for 2016 at $10K and adjust it for 2017, but no such luck.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/morneau-liberal-taxes-for-middle-class-1.3353939
Thanks for posting. I've been wondering about this lately.
NP. There is a tax cut that a lot of us will benefit from in the new budget so that should take some of the sting out of the TFSA change. Since it's indexed again hopefully we'll see it bumped to $6K in the couple years.
Any idea when the next indexation increase is due? Is 2017 too early? Does it depend on actual observed interest rates?
-
Any idea when the next indexation increase is due? Is 2017 too early? Does it depend on actual observed interest rates?
I think it depends on observed inflation/CPI and Gov't will. Inflation adjustments have been in chunks of $500.
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/tpcs/tfsa-celi/cntrbtn-eng.html
Adding $500 to the current limit of $5500 is ~9% increase. The last inflation increase was in 2013.
I don't think that means we need to see cumulative inflation of 9% to get a bump.
The TFSA contribution limit is a Gov't policy tool. They can move it whenever they feel like as we saw with the Cons in 2015.
The Liberal move was to differentiate themselves from the Cons....I wouldn't take that to mean anything with regards the TFSA or high savers in general. If the Libs bumped up the TFSA a couple times during their 4yr term they'd generate a bunch of goodwill from the folks who didn't like the TFSA roll back and still have made their political point.
-
Any idea when the next indexation increase is due? Is 2017 too early? Does it depend on actual observed interest rates?
Garth says about 7 years: http://www.greaterfool.ca/2015/12/08/tuesday/
... the limit will be indexed to inflation, starting in 2017. Given the current cost-of-living rate (about 2%), it would take seven long years for the limit to be increased from $5,500 to six thousand. Big deal.
-
If you want to keep the 10k TFSA limit, here's a petition you can sign;
https://www.change.org/p/justin-trudeau-keep-the-annual-tfsa-contribution-limit-at-10-000 (https://www.change.org/p/justin-trudeau-keep-the-annual-tfsa-contribution-limit-at-10-000)
Also Garth Turner has some interesting things to say about that change;
http://www.greaterfool.ca/2015/10/26/losing-it-4/ (http://www.greaterfool.ca/2015/10/26/losing-it-4/)
Here's a better petition to sign, as it's sponsored by an MP and in the governments system.
https://petitions.parl.gc.ca/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-3
-
If you want to keep the 10k TFSA limit, here's a petition you can sign;
https://www.change.org/p/justin-trudeau-keep-the-annual-tfsa-contribution-limit-at-10-000 (https://www.change.org/p/justin-trudeau-keep-the-annual-tfsa-contribution-limit-at-10-000)
Also Garth Turner has some interesting things to say about that change;
http://www.greaterfool.ca/2015/10/26/losing-it-4/ (http://www.greaterfool.ca/2015/10/26/losing-it-4/)
Here's a better petition to sign, as it's sponsored by an MP and in the governments system.
https://petitions.parl.gc.ca/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-3
Signed
-
James Fitz-Morris, CBC News earlier this week:
"The Liberals campaigned hard on a promise to lower the second income-tax bracket — which in 2016 will cover earnings between $45,282 and $90,563. Right now the rate for income in that range stands at 22 per cent; the Liberals intend to move it to 20.5 per cent.
For individuals at the top of the income bracket, the tax cut will save them $680 a year starting in 2016."
Is it me but a 1,5% tax cut for a $90,563 earner would be $1,358 instead of $680? What am I missing here?
-
James Fitz-Morris, CBC News earlier this week:
"The Liberals campaigned hard on a promise to lower the second income-tax bracket — which in 2016 will cover earnings between $45,282 and $90,563. Right now the rate for income in that range stands at 22 per cent; the Liberals intend to move it to 20.5 per cent.
For individuals at the top of the income bracket, the tax cut will save them $680 a year starting in 2016."
Is it me but a 1,5% tax cut for a $90,563 earner would be $1,358 instead of $680? What am I missing here?
Its only on the income above $45 282.
-
James Fitz-Morris, CBC News earlier this week:
"The Liberals campaigned hard on a promise to lower the second income-tax bracket — which in 2016 will cover earnings between $45,282 and $90,563. Right now the rate for income in that range stands at 22 per cent; the Liberals intend to move it to 20.5 per cent.
For individuals at the top of the income bracket, the tax cut will save them $680 a year starting in 2016."
Is it me but a 1,5% tax cut for a $90,563 earner would be $1,358 instead of $680? What am I missing here?
Its only on the income above $45 282.
Thank you Tux!
Do you think they will remove the income splitting for 2016 while cutting this bracket rate?
-
Honestly I think of lot of things are up in the air right now. The Libs are already saying the budget didn't look as good as they thought, with the oil prices, economic slowdown, and the ever looming potential of a real estate price correction. Their big campaign promise was $10B more in infrastructure spending to kickstart the economy. In order to accomplish this without running massive deficits they will have to try generate more revenue. I would not be surprised if, in the next two years, we see the elimination of income splitting, a small increase in the GST/HST, a moderate increase to the $90000 - $140000 bracket, and/or an elimination of a lot of corporate grants and accelerated write-offs.
It's either this, or renege on the promise to spend on infrastructure. I can't see them doing that as every provincial and municipal politician will fume.
-
Honestly I think of lot of things are up in the air right now. The Libs are already saying the budget didn't look as good as they thought, with the oil prices, economic slowdown, and the ever looming potential of a real estate price correction. Their big campaign promise was $10B more in infrastructure spending to kickstart the economy. In order to accomplish this without running massive deficits they will have to try generate more revenue. I would not be surprised if, in the next two years, we see the elimination of income splitting, a small increase in the GST/HST, a moderate increase to the $90000 - $140000 bracket, and/or an elimination of a lot of corporate grants and accelerated write-offs.
It's either this, or renege on the promise to spend on infrastructure. I can't see them doing that as every provincial and municipal politician will fume.
They could also decide to shoot for a $20B deficit instead of $10B with low interest rates they can get...
-
Honestly I think of lot of things are up in the air right now. The Libs are already saying the budget didn't look as good as they thought, with the oil prices, economic slowdown, and the ever looming potential of a real estate price correction. Their big campaign promise was $10B more in infrastructure spending to kickstart the economy. In order to accomplish this without running massive deficits they will have to try generate more revenue. I would not be surprised if, in the next two years, we see the elimination of income splitting, a small increase in the GST/HST, a moderate increase to the $90000 - $140000 bracket, and/or an elimination of a lot of corporate grants and accelerated write-offs.
It's either this, or renege on the promise to spend on infrastructure. I can't see them doing that as every provincial and municipal politician will fume.
Family Tax Cut is dead I believe (for 2016). Tax cut is as they campaigned, but a shitty deal - for the vast majority. TFSA is back to the old method.
Still. Better than more Harper, eh? Looking forward to seeing the UCCB/CCTB replacement.
-
Honestly I think of lot of things are up in the air right now. The Libs are already saying the budget didn't look as good as they thought, with the oil prices, economic slowdown, and the ever looming potential of a real estate price correction. Their big campaign promise was $10B more in infrastructure spending to kickstart the economy. In order to accomplish this without running massive deficits they will have to try generate more revenue. I would not be surprised if, in the next two years, we see the elimination of income splitting, a small increase in the GST/HST, a moderate increase to the $90000 - $140000 bracket, and/or an elimination of a lot of corporate grants and accelerated write-offs.
It's either this, or renege on the promise to spend on infrastructure. I can't see them doing that as every provincial and municipal politician will fume.
Family Tax Cut is dead I believe (for 2016). Tax cut is as they campaigned, but a shitty deal - for the vast majority. TFSA is back to the old method.
Still. Better than more Harper, eh? Looking forward to seeing the UCCB/CCTB replacement.
I found this informative.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/video/video-drawing-conclusions-how-the-canada-child-benefit-credit-works/article27475581/
Looks pretty good for low-income families.
-
I found this informative.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/video/video-drawing-conclusions-how-the-canada-child-benefit-credit-works/article27475581/
Looks pretty good for low-income families.
Heh they'd be more helpful putting a simple calculator in, than a vid with examples that apply to nobody. Still, it lays out the equations.
I think we'll be marginally better off, but it's hard to compare as we'll have vastly differing household incomes.
Still, if you're a min. wage worker with two children, an extra $1k a month is a hell of a lot of tax free money.
-
I found this informative.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/video/video-drawing-conclusions-how-the-canada-child-benefit-credit-works/article27475581/
Looks pretty good for low-income families.
Heh they'd be more helpful putting a simple calculator in, than a vid with examples that apply to nobody. Still, it lays out the equations.
I think we'll be marginally better off, but it's hard to compare as we'll have vastly differing household incomes.
Still, if you're a min. wage worker with two children, an extra $1k a month is a hell of a lot of tax free money.
On the Lib's website, there is a easy to use calculator. I entered the numbers and our household will benifit a net 2,600$/year (2 kids 8 and 12 and total taxable income 90k$) Hum, a least I hope they use taxable income...the one after RRSP contribution etc.
About the income splitting, we will loose 1,200$ advantage when it stops but then get a 300$ reduction on my income tax rate, a net loss of 900$
At the end, we gain a net 1,700$, I think...
-
I found this informative.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/video/video-drawing-conclusions-how-the-canada-child-benefit-credit-works/article27475581/
Looks pretty good for low-income families.
Heh they'd be more helpful putting a simple calculator in, than a vid with examples that apply to nobody. Still, it lays out the equations.
I think we'll be marginally better off, but it's hard to compare as we'll have vastly differing household incomes.
Still, if you're a min. wage worker with two children, an extra $1k a month is a hell of a lot of tax free money.
On the Lib's website, there is a easy to use calculator. I entered the numbers and our household will benifit a net 2,600$/year (2 kids 8 and 12 and total taxable income 90k$) Hum, a least I hope they use taxable income...the one after RRSP contribution etc.
About the income splitting, we will loose 1,200$ advantage when it stops but then get a 300$ reduction on my income tax rate, a net loss of 900$
At the end, we gain a net 1,700$, I think...
Do you have a link to this? Might be the mobile version but I can't find it.
-
That's the first suggestion I've heard about raising the GST. I think it's a good suggestion. Harper was premature in cutting it while we still had all that debt & right before his big deficit spends.
-
That's the first suggestion I've heard about raising the GST. I think it's a good suggestion. Harper was premature in cutting it while we still had all that debt & right before his big deficit spends.
It's a good way to raise money as it punishes you for spending more, but I don't think even the libs with their solid win have the political capital to raise the GST at the current time. Had they wanted to do so it should have been an election issue.
-
I found this informative.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/video/video-drawing-conclusions-how-the-canada-child-benefit-credit-works/article27475581/
Looks pretty good for low-income families.
Heh they'd be more helpful putting a simple calculator in, than a vid with examples that apply to nobody. Still, it lays out the equations.
I think we'll be marginally better off, but it's hard to compare as we'll have vastly differing household incomes.
Still, if you're a min. wage worker with two children, an extra $1k a month is a hell of a lot of tax free money.
On the Lib's website, there is a easy to use calculator. I entered the numbers and our household will benifit a net 2,600$/year (2 kids 8 and 12 and total taxable income 90k$) Hum, a least I hope they use taxable income...the one after RRSP contribution etc.
About the income splitting, we will loose 1,200$ advantage when it stops but then get a 300$ reduction on my income tax rate, a net loss of 900$
At the end, we gain a net 1,700$, I think...
Do you have a link to this? Might be the mobile version but I can't find it.
https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/helping-families/
-
I don't get these benefit payments. For folks between 45k and 90k why not just give them a bigger tax deduction at the end of the year? Isn't that easier to manage than paying out money and tracking it? I get for under 45k the benefit seems to be more than what they may even pay in taxes so why not just pay the difference?
-
I don't get these benefit payments. For folks between 45k and 90k why not just give them a bigger tax deduction at the end of the year? Isn't that easier to manage than paying out money and tracking it? I get for under 45k the benefit seems to be more than what they may even pay in taxes so why not just pay the difference?
One of the liberal incentives is the enhanced child tax benefit. These benefits are paid out to families. Individuals, childless couples, and older people don't get anything.
The middle class tax cut is another liberal incentive. The 45-90K tax bracket decreased from 22% to 20.5%. This benefits all people whose make more than 45K. The liberals also introduced a new 33% bracket for people who make more than 200K. Previously, the highest tax bracket was 29%.
-
I get that lostamonkey. What I should have said is why pay out a child benefit when you could just give a tax deduction for parents, families, people with dependents. It would be more efficient, all you would have to do is fill out one line on a tax return and done. Instead of the government issuing checks and making sure the benefit is spent properly. For lower incomes not even paying tax I suppose a payment would need to be made, I guess that's why they do a benefit rather than a tax deduction?
-
I get that lostamonkey. What I should have said is why pay out a child benefit when you could just give a tax deduction for parents, families, people with dependents. It would be more efficient, all you would have to do is fill out one line on a tax return and done. Instead of the government issuing checks and making sure the benefit is spent properly. For lower incomes not even paying tax I suppose a payment would need to be made, I guess that's why they do a benefit rather than a tax deduction?
The monthly direct deposits make sense. A family with two little kids and an income under $30k does not have anywhere near $12,800 worth of annual taxes owed. Lower-income families are the ones receiving the lion's share of benefits so the system must work for their situation. A lump sum tax refund paid out every spring is less likely to last the year (and pay for necessities 11 months later) than doling out cash every month. I don't know that the gov does anything to control what the money is spent on (does anyone know for sure? My impression was it was left to the recipient to spend as they wanted.)
-
by spent properly I meant the program is properly distributing the benefit to actual families, not what families are spending the money on. Programs are usually evaluated to ensure no fraud etc. is taking place and that in itself can cost money. The tax system already has an audit system in place. The big problem with my suggestion for a tax deduction is for lower incomes like I already mentioned. Everyone in the higher tax brackets would likely see a benefit that eliminates some or all of their taxes payable.
In the end just raise tax deductions for families and create a benefit for lower family incomes instead of writing checks to as many people as possible. To me it seems like an obvious ploy, here's a check! Don't forget who gave it to you!
I'm not suggesting less money be spent, just that it be done more efficiently. Why pay full taxes on your income and then just get this benefit every quarter (or how often its done, I'm not sure)? People that prep their taxes properly could just reduce the amount that comes off their pay check every pay day. The tax system and benefit system is so convoluted in this country, all so every possible group can see the "hard" work the latest government is doing for them.
-
by spent properly I meant the program is properly distributing the benefit to actual families, not what families are spending the money on. Programs are usually evaluated to ensure no fraud etc. is taking place and that in itself can cost money. The tax system already has an audit system in place. The big problem with my suggestion for a tax deduction is for lower incomes like I already mentioned. Everyone in the higher tax brackets would likely see a benefit that eliminates some or all of their taxes payable.
In the end just raise tax deductions for families and create a benefit for lower family incomes instead of writing checks to as many people as possible. To me it seems like an obvious ploy, here's a check! Don't forget who gave it to you!
I'm not suggesting less money be spent, just that it be done more efficiently. Why pay full taxes on your income and then just get this benefit every quarter (or how often its done, I'm not sure)? People that prep their taxes properly could just reduce the amount that comes off their pay check every pay day. The tax system and benefit system is so convoluted in this country, all so every possible group can see the "hard" work the latest government is doing for them.
It may be more efficient just to have one payment mechanism for everyone.
I think tax planning is pretty sexy, but I am a huge weirdo. Lots of people look at their taxes only when they absolutely have to (usually the deadline to file last year's taxes) and think a big tax refund is a win (or a gift from the government.) Asking people to estimate/pre-prepare their taxes is not going to have huge uptake. So you're running into the problem of a once-a-year payout at tax time, vs. the current monthly disbursements that mean, for at least a day or two every month, money is available if the family is otherwise short for necessities for the kids. If you're not going to restrict what the child benefit money can be spent on, at least give families 12 opportunities a year to make good choices, vs. one opportunity a year (where the money could get misconstrued as "my tax refund to enjoy" vs. "subsidy to benefit our children.")
Child benefits are paid out to the entire population, so policies need to work for everyone (including non-Mustachians and people who pay no taxes or are bad about filing tax forms.)
-
I suppose that makes sense, I guess I'm just a proponent for simplifying taxes in general and eliminating payouts for the middle class if we can just reduce their taxes instead. I don't want to bore people with this tangent, but just reduce the 45-90k income tax bracket by another percent or two and then pay out the benefit to those under 45k. Full disclosure - I don't have kids, ha!
-
I don't want to bore people with this tangent...
I'm not bored! Very interested. I found it very helpful to read okits' thoughts on the benefit of 12 monthly payments vs 1 for families receiving cash, and agree with it wholeheartedly. It's not something I had ever thought of. I prefer working with an annual budget, but it's not for everyone.
I too wrote something on this forum once questioning the incredible complexity of some tax credits, asking if there wasn't a simpler, cheaper way for the govt to create the intended benefit. Totally get it :)
-
Well, you're all just so lovely and reasonable. You're just feeding those pernicious stereotypes of Canadians being nice, you know! ;)
And big sigh, taxation and subsidies (and the behaviour they are trying to incent) are ridiculously complex. Lots of head-scratching and frustration to go around. Then you get politicians in the mix, trying to curry electoral favour with policy changes that are bribes... What a CF. :)
-
I'd much prefer a taxable benefit than a means tested one.
Why? Because *next year* I am going to have low income, but child benefit based on *last year's* income.
If you get UCCB, it is taxed on *this* year's earnings. It makes way more sense to me.
Say wifeypon goes on a year long maternity in January. Made a reasonable amount of money, but some self employed, the previous year. Pops a sprog in Dec.
From June that year she will get new child benefit based on the previous year, not the current low income (maternity EI) year. With UCCB, you get all the money, then have to pay back whatever in addition to your other tax the following year.
It's even worse if for whatever you don't get EI - you have zero income on mat leave, and low child benefits. The following year - nearly 18 months later - you'll suddenly be drowning in money as you will presumably have gone back to work, but the means testing says "oh, shit, you earned *nothing* last year!".
I don't like how it's all so middle class focussed. If you're earning $12k, then you're in a whole other place from someone earning $35k.
But, still. Better than Harper. Perhaps. Environmentally, certainly.