Canadian Election - Financial Impact

[Kashmani]

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.

[Killerbrandt]

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.

[Left]

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

[daverobev]

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

[Retire-Canada]

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.

[Killerbrandt]

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.

[Le Barbu]

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

[Left]

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

[Koogie]

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.

[Kaspian]

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.

[Le Barbu]

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!!

[nereo]

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. 

[GuitarStv]

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.

[daverobev]

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.

[Le Barbu]

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...

[SpaceBrokoli]

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.

[YoungInvestor]

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.

[Kashmani]

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/

[Koogie]

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.

[Kashmani]

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. :)

[Le Barbu]

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!

[cloudsail]

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."

[SpaceBrokoli]

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.

[YoungInvestor]

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.

[marty998]

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.

[Kaspian]

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".

[GuitarStv]

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.

[Retire-Canada]

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.

[Retire-Canada]

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.

[Jon_Snow]

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...

[Kaspian]

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?!!"

[nereo]

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?

[PharmaStache]

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.

[okits]

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.

[Captain and Mrs Slow]

  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

*when they collapse the RRPS and have to add it to the income for year

[Jon_Snow]

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. :)

[Retire-Canada]

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.

[FI40]

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?

[Heckler]

If anyone has $10K they need to stash, I can do it tax free for you.  ;)

[RichMoose]

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...

[Le Barbu]

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

[daverobev]

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

[Le Barbu]

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!

[DavidAnnArbor]

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?

[GuitarStv]

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?

[scrubbyfish]

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.

[nobodyspecial]

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

[daverobev]

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*.

[scrubbyfish]

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).

[GuitarStv]

? 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