# The Trudeau Liberals 2016 Tax Plans



## George Wallace (10 Dec 2015)

Thank you Justin.  I am an "average Canadian" and I like the TFSA, even though I may not be able to take advantage of it fully every year.  It is still a tool I can use towards saving for my future.  I think it is you who is not "listening to average Canadians".

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/news-video/video-justin-trudeau-defends-tfsa-reduction/article27652370/


Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> Say goodbye to your $10,000 TFSA, but here’s why it’s not so bad
> The Financial Post
> Garry Marr | December 7, 2015 6:15 PM ET
> 
> ...



More on LINK.


----------



## Altair (10 Dec 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Thank you Justin.  I am an "average Canadian" and I like the TFSA, even though I may not be able to take advantage of it fully every year.  It is still a tool I can use towards saving for my future.  I think it is you who is not "listening to average Canadians".
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/news-video/video-justin-trudeau-defends-tfsa-reduction/article27652370/
> 
> ...


I know very few people who use their TFSA to the fullest. I only know a few people who use it at all.

Maybe we run in different circles, but the average Canadians I know don't care one way or another about TFSAs.

Bills, car payments, child benefits, ya, people I know care about that. TFSAs. Meh.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (10 Dec 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> I know very few people who use their TFSA to the fullest. I only know a few people who use it at all.
> 
> Maybe we run in different circles, but the average Canadians I know don't care one way or another about TFSAs.
> 
> Bills, car payments, child benefits, ya, people I know care about that. TFSAs. Meh.



TFSA's are actually a very good way of saving money and most of the people we deal with use them once they understand what they are. In many ways they are superior to RRSPs, which for most military members a very poor means of saving as it is a deferral of income tax payable vice tax-neutral. The TFSA, being tax neutral, in the long run works much more effectively (the rate of growth of a RRSP will NEVER be more than the income tax rate). The trick with investing in stocks, RRSPs, etc is that you have to have enough time left to make them effective, or in effect, to survive the inevitable "peaks and valleys" of the stock market. 

My quick google check indicated that approximately 47% of Canadians have one which is pretty sizable (8% more than who voted Liberal, for example). I would agree that a $10,000 annual limit is pretty high for an average individual ($833.33/month) but not so high that is beyond the realm of possibility that it is achievable (people without mortgages, double incomes, etc). Whereas the income splitting helped single income families, the TFSA was beneficial for 2 income families with the ability to save (and promoted saving, which is what the government wanted) as it had the potential to save them $3000-4000/year based on their effective tax rates. Now, both groups are reduced in their ability to save money on taxes.

C'est la vie.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Dec 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> I know very few people who use their TFSA to the fullest. I only know a few people who use it at all.
> 
> Maybe we run in different circles, but the average Canadians I know don't care one way or another about TFSAs.
> 
> Bills, car payments, child benefits, ya, people I know care about that. TFSAs. Meh.



So, because you don't have any, or know anyone who does, it can be done away with.

Reminds me of another analogy: When a Conservative doesn't like guns, they don't have any. When a Liberal doesn't like guns, no one can have any.


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Dec 2015)

>I know very few people who use their TFSA to the fullest. I only know a few people who use it at all.
> Maybe we run in different circles, but the average Canadians I know don't care one way or another about TFSAs.

I see you follow the progressive/"liberal" template for evaluating the merits of a policy: if you don't like it, and don't know many other people who like it, no-one else needs or deserves it.

[Late again.]


----------



## George Wallace (10 Dec 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> I know very few people who use their TFSA to the fullest. I only know a few people who use it at all.
> 
> Maybe we run in different circles, but the average Canadians I know don't care one way or another about TFSAs.
> 
> Bills, car payments, child benefits, ya, people I know care about that. TFSAs. Meh.



I have to agree with the others who have commented on your post.  It is a totally mindless and ignorant response.  It would seem that you don't even have the most basic knowledge on fiscal management.  TFSA's are not for the here and now.  This is not Mcdonalds.  They are for your future.  Too bad you can not see that.  To put all your eggs in the Lieberal basket and follow their propaganda religiously in blind anticipation of some promised land, really does not make any sense to me.  I could say I pity you, but that would be a waste of effort.  You still would not understand.


----------



## jmt18325 (10 Dec 2015)

That doesn't change that people weren't using them to their full extent (and still won't be) and certainly wouldn't have been using them to their full extent with a $10K limit.  Whether or not their smart policy in theory, they weren't smart policy in practice.  An increase in CPP will mean that Canada has to spend less on GIS in the future.  TFSAs don't guarantee that.


----------



## brihard (10 Dec 2015)

TFSAs are a wealth transfer in favour of the most well off, at the expense (through offset taxes) of taxpaying Canadians who cannot afford to maximize their contributions. That's pretty manifest just by a basic look at the math.

I have no problem with TFSA's conceptually, but there's not a policy justification for them beyond the extent to which they're accessible to the average Canadian. There was nothign wrong with the indexing $5k cap.

Does it suck a bit for me? Sure; I am a person who is in a position, with sufficient financial discipline, to maximize contributions. As is my partner. But my self-interest does not sound policy make. More tax breaks for the wealthy are not called for, and that, in its ultimate effect, is what a TFSA is.


----------



## George Wallace (10 Dec 2015)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> That doesn't change that people weren't using them to their full extent (and still won't be) and certainly wouldn't have been using them to their full extent with a $10K limit.  Whether or not their smart policy in theory, they weren't smart policy in practice.  An increase in CPP will mean that Canada has to spend less on GIS in the future.  TFSAs don't guarantee that.



How about "Bank Accounts"?  People aren't using them to their full extent.  Does it really make any sense to blame everything on "It only benefits the rich"?  That is crap.  It benefits all who chose to use it, and does not benefit all who chose not to use it.  Quite simple really.  It is after all, your future that you have to plan for, and perhaps make sacrifices to achieve, not the Government's.  The Government, however, is giving you a means to save for your future and do so tax free.  It is pure BS to say that only the rich benefit.  Sorry, but no matter what option there is to save for a rainy day or retirement, those with the most disposable monies to put into any of those plans will always benefit more.  So; YES the rich do and always will benefit more.  Fact of life.  Taking away the option to save from ALL Canadians has little affect on the rich, but causes serious harm to the lower income earners.  Life is not fair, but given the option of plans like the TFSA, there exists an attempt to make it a little more so.  
Just think of this:  Justin Trudeau, and many of his Cabinet, come from well to do families.  Taking away a plan that allows ALL Canadians to save for the future and avoid taxes has little to no affect on their wealth; only that of the Middle Class and Lower Class.  This would point to the fact that Trudeau really doesn't give a damn about the Middle Class, nor those below the Poverty Line.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Dec 2015)

Why give a damn about something(middle class) that he knows nothing about or has been unable to define since he uttered the phrase.

The Trudeau Liberals don't want you self sufficient in retirement. They need you to stay insolvent and beholden to the government in order to bribe you into electing them again.


----------



## Altair (10 Dec 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Why give a damn about something(middle class) that he knows nothing about or has been unable to define since he uttered the phrase.
> 
> The Trudeau Liberals don't want you self sufficient in retirement. They need you to stay insolvent and beholden to the government in order to bribe you into electing them again.


Yes, i'm sure thats it.


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Dec 2015)

Nearly every vehicle for mitigating tax exposure will benefit wealthier people more than less wealthy people.  As objections go, "it benefits the wealthy" is close to zero - it is like observing that the sun rises in the east.

TFSAs and RRSPs fall into that category.  What sets them apart from fancier tax avoidance schemes is accessibility.  The relentless hostility emanating from some quarters toward anything that might be accessible to "average" people is irritating.

Adherents of some political factions may not want people "insolvent and beholden", but it is foolish to not understand that everyone is capable of thinking things through and setting their aims and policies accordingly.  People with fewer options are easier to control, manipulate, and manage.  Mostly unfettered liberty is not a baseline principle of leftist politics.  People who favour activist, broadly involved government will want to find ways to compel other people to go along with activist, broadly involved government.  They will identify courses of action, they will make plans, and they will execute.


----------



## cavalryman (11 Dec 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> People who favour activist, broadly involved government will want to find ways to compel other people to go along with activist, broadly involved government.  They will identify courses of action, they will make plans, and they will execute.



As a noted law professor likes to say, there's also more opportunity for graft under an activist government (see green power generation in Ontario, AdScam, carbon cap & trade, etc, etc, etc)


----------



## a_majoor (11 Dec 2015)

The TFSA is a very flexible plan which allows the average saver much more room for manouevre than even an RRSP. Progressives do indeed hate ideas and plans which provide the average taxpaying citizen to make their own plans and decisions: these are usually not in accord with whatever the Progressives deem to be the right and proper things to do:

http://army.ca/forums/threads/69927/post-684595.html#msg684595


----------



## jmt18325 (11 Dec 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> How about "Bank Accounts"?  People aren't using them to their full extent.  Does it really make any sense to blame everything on "It only benefits the rich"?  That is crap.



There's nothing wrong with being rich.  The reality is, TFSAs don't solve the problem of low savings, as they had a relatively low use rate (at least in any meaningful way).  The comparison to bank accounts is nonsense.  There are better ways to use finite government revenues.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Dec 2015)

:


			
				jmt18325 said:
			
		

> There's nothing wrong with being rich.  The reality is, TFSAs don't solve the problem of low savings, as they had a relatively low use rate (at least in any meaningful way).  The comparison to bank accounts is nonsense.  There are better ways to use finite government revenues.


 :
Whoosh right over your head.


----------



## jmt18325 (11 Dec 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> : :
> Whoosh right over your head.



To the contrary, I understand exactly what you're saying, I simply disagree.  If we want people to save, we'll have to make them, as we did with the original CPP.  In the end, it will cost the government less.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Dec 2015)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> To the contrary, I understand exactly what you're saying, I simply disagree.  If we want people to save, we'll have to make them, as we did with the original CPP.  In the end, it will cost the government less.



The CPP is not a savings plan.  It has a maximum monthly payment out to contributors, and penalties for those years that one did not contribute. 

Seriously.  It is everyone's right and initiative to save on their own.  The TFSA is one such means available.  Others, with more knowledge and money, may invest in Real Estate.  The TFSA, however, is available to ALL, not just the wealthy.  If you are somehow under the impression that the Government will support you in your retirement years through the CPP, then you are truly unfortunate and will be in a real world of hurt when that time comes.  If you want to live a little more comfortably in your retirement years, YOU have to take the initiative to save by other means, or you will be "eating catfood from a tin".  It would appear that this Government in making these cuts to the TFSA contributions, is leading you down the garden path towards the day that you will be "eating catfood from a tin" if you can afford it.  

As you see, I strongly disagree with your point of view that the TFSA is a bad thing and not a good means for people of all incomes to save.  I, in fact, think you are naive and foolish.  Sorry.  That is my opinion.


----------



## jmt18325 (11 Dec 2015)

It's not the TFSA that I have a problem with - it's the doubling of the contribution limit.  I have a TFSA and I use it.  There's no way I, being squarely middle class, will ever contribute $10,000 a year (not that I think government should always benefit me, that's not my point).  That is true of over 90% of people.

The CPP is a pooled pension plan with assets.  Increasing the in and out there will go a long way to protecting the government from large payouts (transfers to individuals eat up double the amount of the federal budget that DND does) in the future as the population ages.  The TFSA also does that, but much less so.  I think a mixed approach is the best.  I'm in favour of having a moderately sized TFSA and a moderately sized CPP increase.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Dec 2015)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> It's not the TFSA that I have a problem with - it's the doubling of the contribution limit.  I have a TFSA and I use it.  There's no way I, being squarely middle class, will ever contribute $10,000 a year (not that I think government should always benefit me, that's not my point).  That is true of over 90% of people.



Seriously.  So what.

If at some time in the future, you become a high income wage earner, you can take advantage of the higher limit.  Or perhaps you won the Loto and wanted to hide some, the TFSA would be there.  Heck, you could fill your TFSA for all the shortages you may have had in previous years, and then throw some into a RRSP  and any other plan you want.  Just because the limit is higher than YOU personally can not max it out, doesn't mean that other Canadians have to suffer for your shortcomings.  This is not a Socialist, nor a Communist, country yet.  You are exhibiting very narrow views on your sole existence, ignoring the opportunities offered to others who are not in the same boat as you.   Your views in fact will lead more to poverty and deficits than not.

A quote attributed to Margaret Thatcher goes along the lines of

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money [to spend]."


----------



## Altair (11 Dec 2015)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> It's not the TFSA that I have a problem with - it's the doubling of the contribution limit.  I have a TFSA and I use it.  There's no way I, being squarely middle class, will ever contribute $10,000 a year (not that I think government should always benefit me, that's not my point).  That is true of over 90% of people.
> 
> The CPP is a pooled pension plan with assets.  Increasing the in and out there will go a long way to protecting the government from large payouts (transfers to individuals eat up double the amount of the federal budget that DND does) in the future as the population ages.  The TFSA also does that, but much less so.  I think a mixed approach is the best.  I'm in favour of having a moderately sized TFSA and a moderately sized CPP increase.


That makes the most sense, but at the end of day, people who could take full advantage of the TFSA system will be bitter that they can no longer do so.

The majority of canadians who cannot take full advantage of it do not figure into that calculation.


----------



## jmt18325 (11 Dec 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money [to spend]."[/color]



Of course, since I didn't say anything about spending anyone else's money.....


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Dec 2015)

Liberal logic: Canadians aren't saving enough for retirement, we're going to help Ontario make a new pension plan, but remove 50% of an ability for them to save their money not with the government.

The whole plan is "Save your money where we can spend it, you're not allowed to save it privately."


----------



## Altair (12 Dec 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Liberal logic: Canadians aren't saving enough for retirement, we're going to help Ontario make a new pension plan, but remove 50% of an ability for them to save their money not with the government.
> 
> The whole plan is "Save your money where we can spend it, you're not allowed to save it privately."


Or...wait for it, the poor and a lot of the middle class could never afford to max out their TSFAs so in order to help those who couldn't, help expand the CPP that will help them more that TSFAs ever would, and for those who can still afford to pay into TSFAs leave it for them, just at levels people are more likely to max out 

Maybe the liberals care about people who aren't maxing out their TFSAs every year.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Dec 2015)

The rate of return on your CPP contributions (not the fund's performance, which has no bearing on your entitlement) is supposedly in the range of 2-3%.   My private holdings seem to pretty much keep pace with the 7% average which is widely cited as the long-term average for moderate risk portfolios (ie. stock market performance).  At your death, a spouse can receive a small one-time payment, but nothing else goes into your estate.  Private holdings are yours to dispose of as you wish in your will.  As a forced savings plan, CPP is a sh!tty deal.

If the proposed CPP "expansion" can be implemented so that current retirees get nothing extra and so that all non-retired contributors get out something directly determined by their remaining "expanded" contributions, then it might be borderline acceptable.  But I suspect the intent is to jack the people who still have years ahead of paying in - and in particular to bend over the younger generations, because the ratio of contributors to recipients continues to decline - to provide increased benefits for those who did not see to their own needs.

Maybe someone can broker a deal in which tax shelters for people who can afford retirement savings go away, and every able-bodied person living off government grants loses the subsidy and gets by in the open market.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Dec 2015)

>Maybe the liberals care about people who aren't maxing out their TFSAs every year. 

No, they just sh!t themselves every time they think about "lost" tax-sheltered income.  The Liberals care about political power.  They needed money to make their promises (which is why they eventually just gave up and embraced deficits); RRSPs have been around too long to be "touchable", but the recently applied TFSA limit change was new enough to not be a third rail.  I suspect when they ran the numbers the net effect of their shell game with all the policy changes was supposed to be a modest bump up in revenues, but that plan is not surviving contact with the "enemy" (economy, and those with sufficient resources to mitigate tax exposure).

The TFSA contribution limit has value beyond its annual amount.  Not using your annual limit immediately as it accrues does not mean losing use of it forever.  Middle-aged and laid off with a buyout package, but no prospects of re-employment because firms prefer to hire younger, cheaper workers?  If you have enough contribution space, maybe you can shelter some of your future proceeds from the nest egg after the tax man takes the big bite.  Been among the working poor for years, but received an inheritance?  Maybe you can dump a chunk of it into a TFSA right now and keep socking pieces of it away with each passing year to generate some additional and tax-free income and be less poor.

The TFSA is almost meaningless to wealthy people, and certainly to super-wealthy people.  But the contribution limit - and in particular, the accumulation of it - is (or could be) extremely helpful to middle class people (or perennially poor people who receive a windfall).


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Dec 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Maybe the liberals care about people who aren't maxing out their TFSAs every year.



By creating another payroll tax that's going to squeeze small businesses? Sounds like a great way to get jobs.

Its also very easy for them to fix their "middle class" tax cut that helps out their buddies too. You get 20.5% on the middle bracket, unless your net income is over the $89,000 limit, in which case you still pay 22%. Voila, now it actually is helping the middle class, not people making between $100k-$199k a year. That wouldn't give all the Liberal MPs (and Tory and NDP) a tax cut though.


----------



## Altair (12 Dec 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The rate of return on your CPP contributions (not the fund's performance, which has no bearing on your entitlement) is supposedly in the range of 2-3%.   My private holdings seem to pretty much keep pace with the 7% average which is widely cited as the long-term average for moderate risk portfolios (ie. stock market performance).  At your death, a spouse can receive a small one-time payment, but nothing else goes into your estate.  Private holdings are yours to dispose of as you wish in your will.  As a forced savings plan, CPP is a sh!tty deal.
> 
> If the proposed CPP "expansion" can be implemented so that current retirees get nothing extra and so that all non-retired contributors get out something directly determined by their remaining "expanded" contributions, then it might be borderline acceptable.  But I suspect the intent is to jack the people who still have years ahead of paying in - and in particular to bend over the younger generations, because the ratio of contributors to recipients continues to decline - to provide increased benefits for those who did not see to their own needs.
> 
> Maybe someone can broker a deal in which tax shelters for people who can afford retirement savings go away, and every able-bodied person living off government grants loses the subsidy and gets by in the open market.


like any politician is suicidal enough to piss of the elderly demographic voting bloc.

Listen, I get it. I have money put aside, investments, a decent job that pays for a decent standard of living.

The community I got out of have none of those things. Not a heck of a lot of opportunities. My parents are solidly in the lower class, and they worked hard to get there. They are a success story only in the sense that they got out of their native country, escaping drug wars, police corruption and death. They raised two kids by working every single day and in all likely hood won't be able to retire comfortably at all. My grandmother, who they sponsored to get to canada worked till she was 81 cleaning houses until she got sick and was actually considered disabled by the goverment. 

This isn't to garner sympathy. I'm proud of my parents, who worked hard every single day to give me and my siblings a chance to succeed in Canada. It's just to say for those who have never been there or haven't been there recently . All this whining about limiting TSFAs, tax cuts for middle class, expanding the CPP. Does anyone take a minute to think about how this will help people who actually need help?


----------



## McG (12 Dec 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Its also very easy for them to fix their "middle class" tax cut that helps out their buddies too. You get 20.5% on the middle bracket, unless your net income is over the $89,000 limit, in which case you still pay 22%. Voila, now it actually is helping the middle class, not people making between $100k-$199k a year. That wouldn't give all the Liberal MPs (and Tory and NDP) a tax cut though.


So, a progressive tax system is designed so that you pay more when you make more but you also take home more when you make more,
I can do the math if you need, but I am fairly confident that your proposal see people pay more and take home less when they get that small raise that brings them just across the $89k point.  That proposal is not a good or fair system, regardless of one's thoughts on progressive vs flat taxes.


----------



## georgelunn (12 Dec 2015)

Just like Harper, Justin Trudeau has advisers whose intentions are sinister. Cuban and Chinese moles. I would not mind being taxed with 40% (regular pay; 45% on overtime pay) as I was 7 years ago as long as I am assured of a hefty pension plan. But the problem nowadays is that some are denied their pensions. They 'are given false promises' that on 'this certain day' their pensions will be delivered. But still none. Accept it. The government is in a terrible deficit. These sinister advisers deliberately undo what was done to 'provoke' people whose intentions are good. i.e. an individual who used to moan (like having sex), "tax me, Belinda, harder, harder,, harder.(because Belinda is rich)." And since middle class high taxes deliver the goods, they undo them to sabotage the economy. Then they tax the rich. Man, it is unsustainable to impose a 50% capital gains tax every year. What if they incur losses the next year. Then they go bankrupt.  :rage: Evil is evil, good is good. How can evil be good. How can good be evil?


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Dec 2015)

georgelunn said:
			
		

> Cuban and Chinese moles.


Buh-BYE busconductor

*Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Dec 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> So, a progressive tax system is designed so that you pay more when you make more but you also take home more when you make more,
> I can do the math if you need, but I am fairly confident that your proposal see people pay more and take home less when they get that small raise that brings them just across the $89k point.  That proposal is not a good or fair system, regardless of one's thoughts on progressive vs flat taxes.


Not saying it's perfect, but it's the only way for the Liberals to spin this. I completely disagree with their new Richie Rich tax bracket that is just going to drive money out of the country, because those people can afford to do it.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Dec 2015)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Of course, since I didn't say anything about spending anyone else's money.....



Oh yes you, and Altair, did.  You are both telling us that just because YOU can not max out a TFSA, then none of us should be able to as well.  

Here is a video for you two to watch, to see that lowering the gap between the Rich and the Poor, by bringing the Rich down, does nothing but push the Poor even LOWER.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okHGCz6xxiw

You two are nothing more than "Closet Socialists" who figure that the evil Rich must be brought to bear the brunt of paying taxes for your lack of income.  Don't you even clue into the fact that the more one earns, the higher the tax bracket they enter into?  The RICH are already paying more taxes than you.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (12 Dec 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> So, a progressive tax system is designed so that you pay more when you make more but you also take home more when you make more,
> I can do the math if you need, but I am fairly confident that your proposal see people pay more and take home less when they get that small raise that brings them just across the $89k point.  That proposal is not a good or fair system, regardless of one's thoughts on progressive vs flat taxes.



The only real fair system would be to have a flat rate for everyone. However, selling that idea to the public would be near impossible.

Say, for example, we all paid a 20% flat rate. A low class person making $20,000 wpuld pay $4000 while a high earner (say $100,000) would pay 20,000. Fair


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Dec 2015)

>All this whining about limiting TSFAs, tax cuts for middle class, expanding the CPP. Does anyone take a minute to think about how this will help people who actually need help?

If you want to help low income people, you could raise the individual deductible, lower the lowest tax rate, lower sales tax rates, cut or restrain growth in payroll taxes (CPP, EI), promote employment by reducing regulatory red tape, free up more money for benefits by restraining new spending growth and cutting fringe programs, etc.  There is a party which talks about doing those things - and occasionally does them - but it is not the Liberals.


----------



## jmt18325 (12 Dec 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Oh yes you, and Altair, did.  You are both telling us that just because YOU can not max out a TFSA, then none of us should be able to as well.
> 
> Here is a video for you two to watch, to see that lowering the gap between the Rich and the Poor, by bringing the Rich down, does nothing but push the Poor even LOWER.
> 
> ...




Im not sure where all the above came from, but as a closet socialist, on this topic, I'm most interested in not paying billions of extra dollars in taxes in the form of GIS transfers for people that didn't save enough money now about 20 years from now.

You're being very short sighted in this.  I don't expect you to agree.  You're too busy worrying about spending other people's money in a few years.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Dec 2015)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Im not sure where all the above came from, but as a closet socialist, on this topic, I'm most interested in not paying billions of extra dollars in taxes in the form of GIS transfers for people that didn't save enough money now about 20 years from now.
> 
> You're being very short sighted in this.  I don't expect you to agree.  You're too busy worrying about spending other people's money in a few years.



Whoosh right over your head again.  

It comes from you saying:



			
				jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Of course, since I didn't say anything about spending anyone else's money.....



You are arguing that since you, and Altair, can not max out your TFSA, no one else should be able to.  Does your telling me what I can and can not do with my money not sound like a SOCIALIST attitude and affecting MY MONEY?  As for your having to pay "billions of extra dollars in the form of GIS transfers for people that didn't save enough money now about 20 years from now"; you are bringing it upon yourself when you agree with a policy to cut TFSA contributions and take away from people who are prudent enough to save.

READ AGAIN what Brad Sallows, PuckChaser, and others are saying and see the logic in what others are saying.  Bird_Gunner45 has proposed a Flat Tax.  I have provided links to John F. Kennedy's view on taxes and "building an economy, and thus the nation"; but I am still convinced you did not read or view any of those links; nor do you understand what Margaret Thatcher said about "Socialism".


----------



## jmt18325 (12 Dec 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> You are arguing that since you, and Altair, can not max out your TFSA, no one else should be able to.



I'm arguing that since statistically, very few people max out their TFSAs, there are better ways to ensure our country's retirement future.
    


> Does your telling me what I can and can not do with my money not sound like a SOCIALIST attitude and affecting MY MONEY?



Every government tells you what you can and can't do in various areas of your life to differing extents, so no.



> As for your having to pay "billions of extra dollars in the form of GIS transfers for people that didn't save enough money now about 20 years from now"; you are bringing it upon yourself when you agree with a policy to cut TFSA contributions and take away from people who are prudent enough to save.



We already have many different savings vehicles, yet we're still going to have to pay GIS in the future.  Given Canadian's collective very low savings rate, there's only one way to lessen that.



> READ AGAIN what Brad Sallows, PuckChaser, and others are saying and see the logic in what others are saying.  Bird_Gunner45 has proposed a Flat Tax.



A flat tax disproportionately affects people at the low end of the earning scale (not me).  I'm not in any way in favour of that.



> I have provided links to John F. Kennedy's view on taxes and "building an economy, and thus the nation";



I would agree with him on that - that's why I'm very in favour of Trudeau's infrastructure program and would support a government meeting our defence obligations. 



> nor do you understand what Margaret Thatcher said about "Socialism".



I don't want to spend your money - I want you and everyone else to have to save it to better ensure our future.


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Dec 2015)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I'm arguing that since statistically, very few people max out their TFSAs, there are better ways to ensure our country's retirement future.



Why do we have to get rid of it then? If its not used too much, the cost for implementation is already paid for and its very easy to administer for CRA. If there are better ways, implement those. Reducing TFSA is a purely partisan political trick; its being removed and not replaced with something to help people save for retirement, therefore Canadians are at a net loss regardless of how you, or the Liberals try to spin it.


----------



## jmt18325 (12 Dec 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Why do we have to get rid of it then?



I don't want to get rid of it - I want to leave it at $5000 per year adjusted for inflation going forward, as originally promised.  I would argue that the increase to $10,000 was a partisan increase, costing in the range of $1B per year.

I'm also in favour of increasing the GST back to 7%.  It would, eliminated the Trudeau deficits while allowing Trudeau to keep his spending promises on infrastructure, first nations, and the RCN.


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Dec 2015)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I don't want to get rid of it - I want to leave it at $5000 per year adjusted for inflation going forward, as originally promised.  I would argue that the increase to $10,000 was a partisan increase, costing in the range of $1B per year.
> 
> I'm also in favour of increasing the GST back to 7%.  It would, eliminated the Trudeau deficits while allowing Trudeau to keep his spending promises on infrastructure, first nations, and the RCN.



$1B a year sure seems like a lot of people would be using it, considering they're likely only paying $1125 tax on that extra $5k a year. In fact, if its costing us $1B a year, roughly 888,000 individuals are taking advantage of it (if they paid middle class tax). Which is a significant piece of the Canadian taxpaying population.

You've single-handedly destroyed your own argument with unsourced numbers on cost, while advocating we increase consumption taxes to stagnate spending in an already slow economy. I sincerely hope Trudeau doesn't have people like you as his finance advisors, because we're really $@#@ing screwed if so.


----------



## jmt18325 (12 Dec 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> $1B a year sure seems like a lot of people would be using it, considering they're likely only paying $1125 tax on that extra $5k a year. In fact, if its costing us $1B a year, roughly 888,000 individuals are taking advantage of it (if they paid middle class tax). Which is a significant piece of the Canadian taxpaying population.
> 
> You've single-handedly destroyed your own argument with unsourced numbers on cost, while advocating we increase consumption taxes to stagnate spending in an already slow economy. I sincerely hope Trudeau doesn't have people like you as his finance advisors, because we're really $@#@ing screwed if so.



I was wrong with my revenue cost numbers.  That's over 5 years:

http://calgaryherald.com/news/politics/new-tfsa-limits-boon-for-savers-costly-for-governments

Actually, consumption tax increases coupled with income tax decreases is generally a positive thing.  I wish I could say I was proposing that, but I'm advocating the government returning revenue to say, 2007 levels.  

As it is right now, we can't fix our infrastructure deficit, we can't afford to fix DND, etc.  Those are both very expensive items.  Trudeau is proposing deficits.  I'm proposing the same level of spending on the same things with no deficit.  In the end, it costs us less money.


----------



## Good2Golf (12 Dec 2015)

> I'm arguing that since statistically, very few people max out their TFSAs, there are better ways to ensure our country's retirement future.



Better than citizens taking responsibility for their future and investing in the economy while benefiting from the increased effectiveness of compounding under a tax-free framework so they don't have to draw from significantly more contributors to the tax base?  ???

First-order savings will always be the most efficient.  Money is always subject to some amount of attrition when it moves...


----------



## jmt18325 (12 Dec 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Better than citizens taking responsibility for their future and investing in the economy while benefiting from the increased effectiveness of compounding under a tax-free framework so they don't have to draw from significantly more contributors to the tax base?  ???
> 
> First-order savings will always be the most efficient.  Money is always subject to some amount of attrition when it moves...



In a perfect world, I would agree with you.  We don't live there, unfortunately.


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Dec 2015)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Actually, consumption tax increases coupled with income tax decreases is generally a positive thing.  I wish I could say I was proposing that, but I'm advocating the government returning revenue to say, 2007 levels.



No problem. We'll magically fix the global economy and jump oil back up to $110 USD a barrel with the Canadian dollar at or near par.


----------



## Altair (12 Dec 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Oh yes you, and Altair, did.  You are both telling us that just because YOU can not max out a TFSA, then none of us should be able to as well.
> 
> Here is a video for you two to watch, to see that lowering the gap between the Rich and the Poor, by bringing the Rich down, does nothing but push the Poor even LOWER.
> 
> ...


I could max out a TFSA if I wanted to, I choose not to.

I also earn a decent amount thank you kindly.

I simply don't see how a measure that helps a few people that can use it to the fullest should be valued above a measure that helps the masses for who could really use the help to retire comfortably.

Call me a closet socialist if it makes you feel better. I'll continue to care about the poor in society rather than the top 10 percent who already live very comfortable lives and with measures like TSFAs at their disposal, will lead even more comfortable lives. 

I hope the CPC continues to think and act  like you. Continue to act like they are all in for the 1 percent and the other 9 percent who aspire to be 1 percenters. Their will continue their time in the political wilderness when the rest of the great unwashed turn on them. :nod:


----------



## George Wallace (12 Dec 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> I could max out a TFSA if I wanted to, I choose not to.
> 
> I also earn a decent amount thank you kindly.
> 
> ...



Complete garbage.  However, trying to convince you two selfish Socialists that just because you can't do something, no one else should either is not a good option, is getting tiring.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Dec 2015)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I don't want to spend your money - I want you and everyone else to have to save it to better ensure our future.



 ???

Now you want me to save my money to better ensure a future, but you want to reduce the ways that I can effectively do so.  

Which way do you want it?  You can't have it both ways.

(Or perhaps you are making a Socialist comment that I work hard to save to ensure your and many others futures.  Sorry; I prefer the Capitalist way of working hard to improve my lot, not the lot of someone who does not work to improve their position in life. )


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (12 Dec 2015)

Is there any chance of this turning into a rational conversation, or is it just going to carry on as a "socialist -facist" yelling match.

TFSA's are a good tool for saving money and be it a max of $5000 or $10,000 ought to be an investment option for people.

The top 1% of wage earners ($190,000-ish) could save a total of around $4000 if they invested the full $10,000. That said, over 40% of taxpayers pay no income tax as they don't make enough, so really they save $5000-$10,000. Is that equity?


----------



## Altair (12 Dec 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Is there any chance of this turning into a rational conversation, or is it just going to carry on as a "socialist -facist" yelling match.
> 
> TFSA's are a good tool for saving money and be it a max of $5000 or $10,000 ought to be an investment option for people.
> 
> The top 1% of wage earners ($190,000-ish) could save a total of around $4000 if they invested the full $10,000. That said, over 40% of taxpayers pay no income tax as they don't make enough, so really they save $5000-$10,000. Is that equity?


To your first point, seeing as how this is a military forum board, anyone who doesn't support the Conservative party or the idea that Justin Trudeau is on a mission to destroy Canada is branded a socialist, the answer is probably no.  

To your last point, 40 percent of Canadians don't pay income tax because they don't earn enough, but somehow have money to put 10 grand into a TFSA to save the full amount you alluded to. I love it. If only poor people stopped buying food and paying rent so that they could put their earnings into a TFSA


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Dec 2015)

>a measure that helps the masses for who could really use the help to retire comfortably

No such measure exists, nor is one likely to.  CPP/OAS/GIS are designed to prevent austere poverty, not support comfortable retirement.

Maximum basic CPP monthly retirement payment for 2015 is $1,065.00 and basic OAS is $569.95, for an annual income of $19,619.40.

Basic OAS and GIS without CPP for a single person is $16,113.36 annually.  Depending on circumstances, limits kick in pretty quickly.

If you want to retire comfortably and don't have a government-backed DB pension, or one backed by a strong public or private union/employer fund, you need to save.  20% of your gross income is a widely recommended target.  If that squeezes your desired lifestyle, you need to choose between living more frugally now or more frugally later.  You need to deal with monetary inflation and with the fact that governments and government agencies are working very hard to keep their costs of borrowing low; combined, those two create a fairly hostile climate for returns on investment at present.

The only way to keep OAS/GIS payouts low is to allow people to save, and to create an environment in which the returns on saving are obvious and reasonable.  The current mania with low interest rates achieves exactly the opposite: it penalizes saving, and encourages debt-fueled spending.  There is no worry about paying lots of money out in future for OAS/GIS, because public finances won't support it.  There are too many other stakeholders with more political muscle in line to receive their funding first.

You might easily survive 25 to 35 years after retirement.  That is a long stretch of time to subsist on the equivalent of whatever $18-30K buys right now.  Do not assume the smaller upcoming generations or waves of new immigrants will submit to whatever yoke you believe you can vote to harness them in.


----------



## Jed (12 Dec 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >a measure that helps the masses for who could really use the help to retire comfortably
> 
> No such measure exists, nor is one likely to.  CPP/OAS/GIS are designed to prevent austere poverty, not support comfortable retirement.
> 
> ...



But when you are young and you don't think you will live much past 50 who cares?


----------



## McG (12 Dec 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Its also very easy for them to fix their "middle class" tax cut that helps out their buddies too. You get 20.5% on the middle bracket, unless your net income is over the $89,000 limit, in which case you still pay 22%. Voila, now it actually is helping the middle class, not people making between $100k-$199k a year. That wouldn't give all the Liberal MPs (and Tory and NDP) a tax cut though.





			
				MCG said:
			
		

> So, a progressive tax system is designed so that you pay more when you make more but you also take home more when you make more,
> I can do the math if you need, but I am fairly confident that your proposal see people pay more and take home less when they get that small raise that brings them just across the $89k point.  That proposal is not a good or fair system, regardless of one's thoughts on progressive vs flat taxes.





			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Not saying it's perfect, but it's the only way for the Liberals to spin this. I completely disagree with their new Richie Rich tax bracket that is just going to drive money out of the country, because those people can afford to do it.


Not perfect but the only way?  That is an understatement followed by an untruth.

By what you are proposing, a $1 income increase from $89,400 to $89,401 would see a $671 tax increase; income would have to rise to over $90,300 for an individual to break even on take-home pay.  That is not imperfect, that is a kick in the teeth.

As for being the "only way," I call baloney.  If you want a middle class tax cut, you don't just cut a middle class tax bracket.  If you want to make an "middle class tax cut" then you need to tinker with all the tax brackets (reduce the rates or delay with they kick-in at low ends  and raise or advance the kick-in of higher brackets) while looking at the impact on effective tax rate (and not just marginal tax rate).

As an experiment, plug this into your calculator.

to $12k personal exemption
$12k to $48k at 15%
$48k  to $72k at 20%
$72k  to $120k at 25%
$120k  and up at 30%

It will not make proponents of flat tax happy, but it does achieve the effect that Trudeau promised - a tax cut in the middle and higher taxes up top (though not as high as he aimed).


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Dec 2015)

To be perfectly honest with you, I was trying to give the Liberals a hand in justifying a tax decrease that I find silly if it means I lose income splitting. I could care less what tax system we have, as long as I'm paying less, and still have the same benefits re: health care, cpp, ei that I have now.


----------



## Altair (12 Dec 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> To be perfectly honest with you, I was trying to give the Liberals a hand in justifying a tax decrease that I find silly if it means I lose income splitting. I could care less what tax system we have, as long as I'm paying less, and still have the same benefits re: health care, cpp, ei that I have now.


Ah, the core of the issue.

Important policy decisions must be made with the best interests of puckchaser in mind.


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Dec 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Ah, the core of the issue.
> 
> Important policy decisions must be made with the best interests of puckchaser in mind.



As opposed to trashing TFSA limits because you choose not to use them? I consider myself the middle class working family that Mr. Trudeau tried to target. He failed.


----------



## Altair (12 Dec 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> As opposed to trashing TFSA limits because you choose not to use them? I consider myself the middle class working family that Mr. Trudeau tried to target. He failed.


 Meh. 

He helped me. 1 for 2.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (12 Dec 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> To your first point, seeing as how this is a military forum board, anyone who doesn't support the Conservative party or the idea that Justin Trudeau is on a mission to destroy Canada is branded a socialist, the answer is probably no.
> 
> To your last point, 40 percent of Canadians don't pay income tax because they don't earn enough, but somehow have money to put 10 grand into a TFSA to save the full amount you alluded to. I love it. If only poor people stopped buying food and paying rent so that they could put their earnings into a TFSA



I don't think you understood my point. I understand that they don't pay taxes because they don't make enough (or have enough tax credits). If the 40% that don't pay taxes but use the same services as me (paying $20,000 in income tax) than why should I, paying tax, not have some way to save money and lower my taxes if I choose? Why do people who pay no tax constantly want those paying to pay more? 

I'm in favor of a flat rate as an actual fair means of taxation. Everyone uses the same services so why do only 60% pay? (Aside from earnings)


----------



## Altair (13 Dec 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I don't think you understood my point. I understand that they don't pay taxes because they don't make enough (or have enough tax credits). If the 40% that don't pay taxes but use the same services as me (paying $20,000 in income tax) than why should I, paying tax, not have some way to save money and lower my taxes if I choose? Why do people who pay no tax constantly want those paying to pay more?
> 
> I'm in favor of a flat rate as an actual fair means of taxation. Everyone uses the same services so why do only 60% pay? (Aside from earnings)


 Because it's disgusting that some people would need to chose between paying taxes and eating food.


----------



## Flatliner (13 Dec 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Because it's disgusting that some people would need to chose between paying taxes and eating food.



The hardest part is determining where to draw the line between those who genuinely need and those who abuse.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (13 Dec 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Because it's disgusting that some people would need to chose between paying taxes and eating food.



I agree with this, not so much for the adults but mostly for their children who are he ones that really suffer from mommy and daddy's piss poor decisions.  

On another note, the only thing the last few pages has done for me is reaffirm how stupid and convoluted our tax system is.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Dec 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Because it's disgusting that some people would need to chose between paying taxes and eating food.



Amazing how many folks I know that do OK with low income jobs but also lots who make more then I could ever dream of that can't 'get by'.  Most Canadian poverty is a matter of personal choices about what, and how big/fast/new those things need to be.
Ask my 1999 Mazda 326 and my 2006 Pontiac Montana with 350,000 Kms on it if they mind still being on the road.

Too many folks want too live like rock stars on a bar bands salary, but then scream poverty......


----------



## Jed (13 Dec 2015)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Amazing how many folks I know that do OK with low income jobs but also lots who make more then I could ever dream of that can't 'get by'.  Most Canadian poverty is a matter of personal choices about what, and how big/fast/new those things need to be.
> Ask my 1999 Mazda 326 and my 2006 Pontiac Montana with 350,000 Kms on it if they mind still being on the road.
> 
> Too many folks want too live like rock stars on a bar bands salary, but then scream poverty......



Isn't that the truth?  Piss poor life style choices with drug and alcohol abuse fuel most of the abject poverty in Canada.


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Dec 2015)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Amazing how many folks I know that do OK with low income jobs but also lots who make more then I could ever dream of that can't 'get by'.  Most Canadian poverty is a matter of personal choices about what, and how big/fast/new those things need to be.
> Ask my 1999 Mazda 326 and my 2006 Pontiac Montana with 350,000 Kms on it if they mind still being on the road.
> 
> Too many folks want too live like rock stars on a bar bands salary, but then scream poverty......



 :goodpost:

This.


...and so we get Kathleen Wynne sticking her hand out to the Feds (whom most of us support/fund, in varying degrees, as Mr. Munkhouse does) to help pay for the poor "20, 30 and 40-years olds who have a hard time saving."

So while I picked up heat in a different thread for my "Ant and the Grasshopper" fable reference, it was still just as valid then as it is now.  There are not only 'some', but 'many' who through personal choice (because they are certainly smart enough to change), spend far more on the present than they do accepting the fact that they too, could and should be part of those elements of society that responsibly and personally takes a much greater part in their own future.  Instead, woe are they, for while proportionately enjoying 'today' much more than others, they (the 'Grasshoppers') 'have a hard time' saving (paying) for their future, so the majority who are more responsible (us the 'Ants') pay for them too.

I have no issue whatsoever helping those socially who truly have a need for assistance, I have a relative who is in such need and she is exactly the kind of person whom I have no quibble assisting -- in fact, I am happy that Canada is socially, benevolent enough to make sure she is reasonably cared for (through tools such as ODSB).  Her personal needs are few, and she is not at all a "socially-funded spendthrift."  There are others, as Mr. Munkhouse refers to, who at the heart of this issue, have far less 'pure need' than they do buffer for poor choices...CHOICES!  That is where I believe that issues such as tax structure (over)complexity, balanced with a society that, albeit cyclically in Government, does not hold those who have ability and choice to account to demand less of the teats of society than they do.

That said, and in an effort to at least partially recover to the thread topic, I am happy to see at least some elements of prudence and principled thought and execution going into the Government's vetting of new Canadians (the Syrian refugees).  Now if only the new Federal Government will ease of on the fawning it does whenever Kathleen Wynne is around...

:2c:

G2G


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (13 Dec 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Because it's disgusting that some people would need to chose between paying taxes and eating food.



Do you have evidence that pulling ones municipal weight leads to poverty aside from these emotional ones?


----------



## Altair (13 Dec 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Do you have evidence that pulling ones municipal weight leads to poverty aside from these emotional ones?


Other than the fact that those near the poverty line and those in poverty already have a hard time putting food on the table and hiking their taxes up to whatever flat rate you want so that wealthier people can save more and pay less taxes would only make things worst for them?

No. Not really. I suppose it would never happen, I apologize for bringing it up.


----------



## cavalryman (13 Dec 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Other than the fact that those near the poverty line and those in poverty already have a hard time putting food on the table and hiking their taxes up to whatever flat rate you want so that wealthier people can save more and pay less taxes would only make things worst for them?
> 
> No. Not really. I suppose it would never happen, I apologize for bringing it up.


You do know that pretty much every flat tax proposal out there has a very generous basic exemption, much higher than today's basic exemption, so that a flat tax would have little to no effect on the lowest income earners.  What it does do, is remove the loopholes used by the higher income earners so that the flat tax applies to all of their income, not just what they weren't able to shelter, and it costs a whole lot less to administer, so that the savings can be re-invested in government programs that actually do something for Canadians, rather than use so much of the taxes raised to administer the raising of taxes.

A flat tax, properly designed to protect the most vulnerable, isn't on the table with any party simply because it removes the government's ability to conduct social engineering via the fiscal framework, reward their supporters and generate opportunities for graft.  If the left truly gave a damn about fairness, it would be in favour of a flat tax with no loopholes, deductions or other means of using tax shelters, but the left is just as enamored of graft and forcible social engineering as anyone else.  FWIW, I had absolutely no time for Harper's boutique tax incentives.


----------



## Altair (13 Dec 2015)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> You do know that pretty much every flat tax proposal out there has a very generous basic exemption, much higher than today's basic exemption, so that a flat tax would have little to no effect on the lowest income earners.


 I'm ok with that.


----------



## jmt18325 (13 Dec 2015)

If is had a basic exemption, then it's not a real flat tax.


----------



## Altair (13 Dec 2015)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> If is had a basic exemption, then it's not a real flat tax.


that's why I'm ok with it.

Although I can still see rich individuals consulting with their tax lawyers on how they can claim that they live in poverty.


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Dec 2015)

You can't force charity on people. Either you want total fairness or special interests everywhere.


----------



## Journeyman (13 Dec 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Although I can still see rich individuals consulting with their tax lawyers on how they can claim that they live in poverty.


  :    :deadhorse:


----------



## Altair (13 Dec 2015)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> :    :deadhorse:


It was meant as a joke.

You know, haha?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Dec 2015)

You know, haha?


----------



## jollyjacktar (13 Dec 2015)

Nice cartoon and to the point of the pointless.


----------



## Altair (13 Dec 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> You know, haha?


not bad


----------



## YZT580 (14 Dec 2015)

Flat taxes are the only really fair system but they do contribute heavily to unemployment.  Tax lawyers and accountants become totally redundant.  Just about everyone can subtract the basic exemption and then take 20% and yes it is a true flat tax.  The starting point is the level that provides the basic required income.


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Dec 2015)

On parle du chien...

Whatever current policies are motivating Canadians to do, saving is not one of them.

Debt-to-income ratio rose to 163.7% in third quarter, Statistics Canada says

Debt-to-GDP below some arbitrary (politically determined) threshold is just a bunch of money waiting to be spent.

Debt-to-GDP ratio can come down even with deficits, economists say

Both links cbc.ca.


----------



## ballz (15 Dec 2015)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Flat taxes are the only really fair system but they do contribute heavily to unemployment.  Tax lawyers and accountants become totally redundant.  Just about everyone can subtract the basic exemption and then take 20% and yes it is a true flat tax.  The starting point is the level that provides the basic required income.



You are being tongue-in-cheek, right? Businesses reducing their costs for legal fees and accounting fees is going to contribute to unemployment? :facepalm:



			
				jmt18325 said:
			
		

> If is had a basic exemption, then it's not a real flat tax.



You're right, but part of tax theory is that the effect of taxation is felt heaviest on the first "x" amount of income, hence the basic exemption.

If we want to get into being 100% _fair_ and _efficient_, then the answer would be a lump sum tax. However, this would affect the poor in a very disproportionate way. A lump sum tax of $10,000 would be very efficient and fair (everyone pays the same amount and receives the same services), but would be incredibly onerous on those with low incomes.


----------



## ballz (15 Dec 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You can't force charity on people. Either you want total fairness or special interests everywhere.



This comment seems very odd or hypocritical considering your positions on income-splitting and "the greater good" and whatnot from the Politics 2015 thread.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Dec 2015)

ballz said:
			
		

> If we want to get into being 100% _fair_ and _efficient_, then the answer would be a lump sum tax. However, this would affect the poor in a very disproportionate way.



I am of the opinion that that would only be the case if the poor were spending way outside of their means.  Buying luxury items that they can not afford.  If they are fiscally responsible, then they are buying only the necessities and can actually have savings.   I know that may be asking too much, but the people living below the Poverty Line driving the latest model car, constantly holding a Smart phone to their ear, and buying 55 inch LCD TVs are creating the problem for themselves, not the Government, nor taxes.




			
				ballz said:
			
		

> A lump sum tax of $10,000 would be very efficient and fair (everyone pays the same amount and receives the same services), but would be incredibly onerous on those with low incomes.



This does not make any sense to me at all.  We have people early in their adult lives, not necessarily the poor, who may make an annual wage of only $10K.  Are you suggesting they become Welfare dependents for life?


----------



## Altair (15 Dec 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I am of the opinion that that would only be the case if the poor were spending way outside of their means.  Buying luxury items that they can not afford.  If they are fiscally responsible, then they are buying only the necessities and can actually have savings.   I know that may be asking too much, but the people living below the Poverty Line driving the latest model car, constantly holding a Smart phone to their ear, and buying 55 inch LCD TVs are creating the problem for themselves, not the Government, nor taxes.
> 
> 
> This does not make any sense to me at all.  We have people early in their adult lives, not necessarily the poor, who may make an annual wage of only $10K.  Are you suggesting they become Welfare dependents for life?


What percent of low income earners fall into that category?


----------



## George Wallace (15 Dec 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> What percent of low income earners fall into that category?



Why do I even bother with you?

DID YOU NOT READ THE PORTION HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW:  





			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> .........  If they are fiscally responsible, then they are buying only the necessities and can actually have savings.   I know that may be asking too much, but the people living below the Poverty Line driving the latest model car, constantly holding a Smart phone to their ear, and buying 55 inch LCD TVs are creating the problem for themselves, not the Government, nor taxes.



Again; I will emphasis what I followed that up with:  I KNOW THAT MAY BE ASKING TOO MUCH.

And please stop playing the TROLL.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (15 Dec 2015)

According to the finance minister a raise to the GST is not on the horizon, at least for this year, stating, "Contrary to misleading headlines, we are not considering changes to the GST."

They are also going to establish an advisory council to recommend financial positions leading into the federal budget. The advisory council could prove to be a good move as long as the advisory council is non-partisan in nature (if such a thing exists!).

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/liberals-seek-to-explain-stance-on-whether-to-hike-gst-as-revenue-booster-1.2701438


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (15 Dec 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I am of the opinion that that would only be the case if the poor were spending way outside of their means.  Buying luxury items that they can not afford.  If they are fiscally responsible, then they are buying only the necessities and can actually have savings.



I am going to call bull-exrement on this. I grew up in a lower income farm family in Ontario and can confirm that we never spent on "luxury items" and also never had any savings (as 17 years of no vacations and Zellers brand shoes/clothes can attest). We can't legitimately paint all lower income people with the same brush no more so than can we pain all upper class and middle class persons. There are PLENTY of middle class people spending outside of their means, which I can also attest to through the many interviews I've had to have with soldiers about financial management and how they dont NEED a $40,000 truck, 2 snowmobiles, 2 4-wheelers, and a fishing cottage, so their financial difficulties are of their own making.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Dec 2015)

For people who are looking for the justifications for keeping the TFSA limits at $10,000 in the interest of fairness, economic growth and accessibility of financial tools to the middle class, check out this link:

http://news.nationalpost.com/tag/tfsa

lots of well reasoned arguments to choose from.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Dec 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I am going to call bull-exrement on this. I grew up in a lower income farm family in Ontario and can confirm that we never spent on "luxury items" and also never had any savings (as 17 years of no vacations and Zellers brand shoes/clothes can attest). We can't legitimately paint all lower income people with the same brush no more so than can we pain all upper class and middle class persons. There are PLENTY of middle class people spending outside of their means, which I can also attest to through the many interviews I've had to have with soldiers about financial management and how they dont NEED a $40,000 truck, 2 snowmobiles, 2 4-wheelers, and a fishing cottage, so their financial difficulties are of their own making.



Did I say that all the poor were?  No.  I said "that would be the case if" and you know damn well that there are many who are.


----------



## Halifax Tar (15 Dec 2015)

I don't understand all the butt hurt over the 10K TFSA limit.  

If you can do that, good for you.  Why would anyone care if someone else can ?


----------



## George Wallace (15 Dec 2015)

Perhaps "jealousy"?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (15 Dec 2015)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I don't understand all the butt hurt over the 10K TFSA limit.
> 
> If you can do that, good for you.  Why would anyone care if someone else can ?



Because it's relatively easy for someone who makes a decent paycheque to save 10K if they are smart with money.  I've saved 2.5K in the past two months, I could easily fill a 10K TFSA in a year if I budget properly.

The whole point of a Tax Free Savings Account is to reward people who aren't stupid with their money, i.e. Don't live beyond their means.  It's essentially a tax right-off for not being an idiot with your money.   

The Liberals have to find some way to pay for all their "promises" though.


----------



## ballz (15 Dec 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> This does not make any sense to me at all.  We have people early in their adult lives, not necessarily the poor, who may make an annual wage of only $10K.  Are you suggesting they become Welfare dependents for life?



The efficiency comment is very simple. Its the most efficient because it affects people's choice the least. Any time you affect people's choices, you create a tax burden. The more you are affecting their choices, the bigger the tax burden that is created. Basic supply and demand stuff, even the worst economists accept this idea. So in public finance theory, when comparing tax methods, its a fairly accepted thing that a lump-sum tax is the most efficient type of income tax.

For fairness, not as easily to reconcile. Consider going to rent a move with 4 friends. Movies are incredibly expensive for some reason, like $100 bucks. Do you split it 5 ways or do you insist that the friend who earns the most money pays more? Of course you split it 5 ways, after all, all 5 of you are watching the same movie, getting the same benefit. You are essentially paying a lump-sum of $20 dollars to reap the same benefits (watching the movie).

The difference with taxes, of course, is that you don't get an option on whether you want to pay or not. So most of us recognize this and realize that if you are only making $10,000 dollars, its probably not cool to make you pay a $10,000 lump sum tax like the rest of us. However, that is out of the generosity within our hearts, the *fairest* deal (or perhaps the most equal if that word helps) from a purely business perspective is that everyone pays the same thing to receive the same services (whatever the government provides). Hence my statement that a lump-sum tax is actually the fairest. However, we do use our brains sometimes. Which is why I *agree* that the BEST system (while not necessarily the fairest or most efficient) is a flat tax with a basic exemption of around $17,000.


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Dec 2015)

>"Contrary to misleading headlines, we are not considering changes to the GST."

Which does not rule out either that they already considered changes and made a decision, or will be considering changes in the near future.

An "advisory council" is basically a good way to deflect having to make a political decision.  There are two points that are easy to make: first, that a GST increase is more economically efficient than a PIT increase; second, that more revenue is needed if restraint on the expenditures side of the equation is ignored.  Appoint a bunch of pliable people to reach the conclusion of a situated estimate, and announce their recommendation as policy.


----------



## Good2Golf (15 Dec 2015)

So we should expect "The MacKay Report"?


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (15 Dec 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Did I say that all the poor were?  No.  I said "that would be the case if" and you know damn well that there are many who are.



I know that there are those who ride the public teat just as there are those in the upper class who live in the bahamas (*cough* the Irvings *cough*) to avoid paying Canadian taxes. but get all the benefits of doing business in Canada.


----------



## Altair (16 Dec 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Why do I even bother with you?
> 
> DID YOU NOT READ THE PORTION HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW:
> Again; I will emphasis what I followed that up with:  I KNOW THAT MAY BE ASKING TOO MUCH.
> ...


I was asking a honest question.

No offense intended. Was just curious.


----------



## George Wallace (16 Dec 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I know that there are those who ride the public teat just as there are those in the upper class who live in the bahamas (*cough* the Irvings *cough*) to avoid paying Canadian taxes. but get all the benefits of doing business in Canada.



Actually the Irvings are a whole different story.  They as individuals are not "rich".  Everything they have belongs to the "company".   As part of K.C.'s Will, it stipulated that none of his children was to inherit any of the wealth or lay claim to it, or they would be excluded from the Will.  They may live what appears as a life of luxury, but that is only an illusion.   [


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (16 Dec 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Actually the Irvings are a whole different story.  They as individuals are not "rich".  Everything they have belongs to the "company".   As part of K.C.'s Will, it stipulated that none of his children was to inherit any of the wealth or lay claim to it, or they would be excluded from the Will.  They may live what appears as a life of luxury, but that is only an illusion.   [



None of his sons live in the Bahamas either, they all live in Saint John.  

KC Irving also never lived in the Bahamas, he moved to Bermuda.

The Irving's are an interesting bunch, very frugal if you can believe it.  KC, the founder, basically came from nothing and was one of Canada's great industrialists.

My family is from Saint John and I have a number of family members who know the Irving's and have worked for the company.  They are very good to their employees.  As long as you work hard the company will look after you.  They get an undeserved bad rap at times


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (16 Dec 2015)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> None of his sons live in the Bahamas either, they all live in Saint John.
> 
> KC Irving also never lived in the Bahamas, he moved to Bermuda.
> 
> ...



The financial post disagrees with you.... but sides, from the looks of whatever Irving is the honorary colonel of 3 fd he's not hurting for grocery money

http://www.financialpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=business.financialpost.com//diane-francis/tax-avoidance-becoming-bigger-than-the-u-s-economy


----------



## Halifax Tar (16 Dec 2015)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> None of his sons live in the Bahamas either, they all live in Saint John.
> 
> KC Irving also never lived in the Bahamas, he moved to Bermuda.
> 
> ...



I have to disagree with you.  I was at the Irving ship yard in Halifax during one of Preservers' refits.  I saw his workers all line up in Dec with pink slips and get handed a turkey and told if they wanted their jobs to show up in Jan.  

Sounds like a great employer to me.


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Dec 2015)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> The Irving's are an interesting bunch, very frugal if you can believe it.


That's how they keep their bazillions.  I once worked for a private sector employer who had staff take off their shoes at the front door to cut down on floor cleaning costs.  One of the managers made sure I didn't waste my business cards by holding on to the box of them, and having me ask him for more if needed.  As they say, take care of the pennies ...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (16 Dec 2015)

If I recall correctly in these festive times, Scrooge was also very frugal.  :subbies:


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (16 Dec 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> The financial post disagrees with you.... but sides, from the looks of whatever Irving is the honorary colonel of 3 fd he's not hurting for grocery money
> 
> http://www.financialpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=business.financialpost.com//diane-francis/tax-avoidance-becoming-bigger-than-the-u-s-economy



Again, none of the Irving sons live in the Bahamas.  Just because the Irving family of companies keep some assets in Bermuda doesn't mean any of them actually live there.  I should know, my grandfather lived down the street from JK for many years.



			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I have to disagree with you.  I was at the Irving ship yard in Halifax during one of Preservers' refits.  I saw his workers all line up in Dec with pink slips and get handed a turkey and told if they wanted their jobs to show up in Jan.
> 
> Sounds like a great employer to me.



They're a business, not a charity.  Many companies do this.  Irving is also notorious for shutting down businesses that aren't producing.  Here is a counter-narrative to this though. 

My aunt ran her own interior decorating business for a number of years.  One day,  Kent Building Supplies sent a representative to visit her and offered a very generous sum of money to buy her out.  Along with that money they also offered her a very good job with the company.  She still works for Kent, in management, and really enjoys the company.  Pretty good for a lady that started a career 30 years ago as a nurse.



			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> That's how they keep their bazillions.  I once worked for a private sector employer who had staff take off their shoes at the front door to cut down on floor cleaning costs.  One of the managers made sure I didn't waste my business cards by holding on to the box of them, and having me ask him for more if needed.  As they say, take care of the pennies ...



My grandfather told me that one of JK's sons brought home a fancy sports car one day and was promptly ordered by JK to return it and go get a normal persons car before KC saw it.  The discussion went something like "Irving's don't drive fancy cars".


----------



## a_majoor (17 Dec 2015)

While the story of the car is appealing in an urban legend sort of way, all it really illustrates is the Irvings had both the ability to do whatever they wanted _with their own money_ and that the senior Irvings were sensitive to appearances.

On a more meta level, *we* should also have the ability to do what we want _with our own money_, and not be artificially fettered due to the greed or envy of others.


----------



## YZT580 (18 Dec 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> On a more meta level, *we* should also have the ability to do what we want _with our own money_, and not be artificially fettered due to the greed or envy of others.



Amen to that.  And others includes a government that continuously racks up debt that I will eventually have to assist in repaying  Leaving me much less of my own money to do with as I wish. Tax breaks are much better than a government that announces their desire to help me.


----------



## Halifax Tar (18 Dec 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> On a more meta level, *we* should also have the ability to do what we want _with our own money_, and not be artificially fettered due to the greed or envy of others.



This is the part I have an internal struggle about and is the real separation of my left and right political leanings. 

I agree with the post I should have more positive control over the destiny of the money I earn,  but I think social programs like universal healthcare and social assistance are important facets of our society.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (18 Dec 2015)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> This is the part I have an internal struggle about and is the real separation of my left and right political leanings.
> 
> I agree with the post I should have more positive control over the destiny of the money I earn,  but I think social programs like universal healthcare and social assistance are important facets of our society.



Agree. We need to support health care and social assistance but it's some of these other programs (money to artists, arts, social justice programs, daycare, etc) that we could look at.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Dec 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Agree. We need to support health care and social assistance but it's some of these other programs (money to artists, arts, social justice programs, daycare, etc) that we could look at.



That's it in a nutshell. There are just some things (police, fire, etc) that need support for the greater good, unless you go the route of Freemen on the Land. The other programs should be put under a microscope. We live in a capitalist society. If you can't support yourself with what you choose to do, best get out there and find something that will support what you want. It is not for me (taxes) to be supporting your poems, music, children, et al.

The government, in this case, acts like the unions. I have to pay dues, but I have no say in what the executive does with it, whether I agree or not.

As far as social assistance, I believe a form of workfare is in order. Don't come out to clean the highway? Don't expect a cheque. It's easy enough to assess those that actually require it.

And if I have to take a drug test to make the money, you should have to take one to receive the largesse of all those hard workers that are giving it to you.


----------



## YZT580 (18 Dec 2015)

amen!


----------



## Harris (18 Dec 2015)

Recceguy for Prime Minister.


----------



## McG (17 Jan 2016)

The media seemed to have stepped away from this, but it looks like the heat is not gone just yet.



> *How the Liberal ‘revenue neutral’ tax plan could cost billions and could push top talent south*
> Gordon Isfeld
> The National Post
> 15 Jan 2016
> ...



http://business.financialpost.com/news/economy/the-tax-effect-how-a-revenue-neutral-move-will-wind-up-costing-billions-and-could-push-top-talent-to-seek-work-south-of-the-border


----------



## McG (22 Jan 2016)

The PBO is now saying the "middle class tax cut" will cost $100 million more than already thought.
As an aside, the median income in 2013 was $32,020.  If the tax changes benefit those earning $44,701 to those earning over $200,000 - is that really a middle class tax cut?


> *Liberal tax changes to drain about $100M more per year than expected: watchdog*
> *Liberals had projected tax changes, which includes creation of a new, upper bracket, to be revenue neutral*
> Andy Blatchford, The Canadian Press
> 
> ...


From here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-tax-drain-100-million-1.3413516
But also carried here:http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/liberal-tax-changes-to-drain-100m-more-per-year-than-expected-watchdog-1.2746426

And read the PBO report yourself here: http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2696078/Parliamentary-Budget-Office-Impact-of-tax-changes.pdf


----------



## a_majoor (22 Jan 2016)

The elephant in the room (which no one is talking about) is the effects of the various "climate change" initiatives, which generally fall into extra taxes and fees on consumers. Since the Liberals and their provincial allies have all taken the Kool-Aide, expect that there will be a huge increase in the amount of money taken from Canadians in the name of "climate change" over the next five years.

The reduction in savings, investment and spending power due to the massive increase in taxes will cripple the Canadian economy (think of Ontario and then scale it up), so lower economic performance will create a vicious circle effect of lower tax revenues and reduced spending or greater deficits.

Elections do have consequences.


----------



## Lumber (22 Jan 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The reduction in savings, investment and spending power due to the massive increase in taxes will cripple the Canadian economy (think of Ontario and then scale it up)...



The Ontario economy has been crippled? When did this happen?


----------



## Kilo_302 (22 Jan 2016)

Brihard said:
			
		

> TFSAs are a wealth transfer in favour of the most well off, at the expense (through offset taxes) of taxpaying Canadians who cannot afford to maximize their contributions. That's pretty manifest just by a basic look at the math.
> 
> I have no problem with TFSA's conceptually, but there's not a policy justification for them beyond the extent to which they're accessible to the average Canadian. There was nothign wrong with the indexing $5k cap.
> 
> Does it suck a bit for me? Sure; I am a person who is in a position, with sufficient financial discipline, to maximize contributions. As is my partner. But my self-interest does not sound policy make. More tax breaks for the wealthy are not called for, and that, in its ultimate effect, is what a TFSA is.



Excellent post. The math doesn't lie.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Jan 2016)

Virtually every tax mitigation measure is a wealth transfer in favour of the most well off.  Welcome to the land of the obvious.


----------



## Kilo_302 (24 Jan 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Virtually every tax mitigation measure is a wealth transfer in favour of the most well off.  Welcome to the land of the obvious.



Well if you read what a lot of people on this forum say about taxes Brad, I don't think you could say it's very obvious at all.


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Jan 2016)

What do people's expressed opinions have to do with it being obvious?


----------



## Kilo_302 (24 Jan 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> What do people's expressed opinions have to do with it being obvious?




The definition of obvious is "easily perceived or understood; clear, self-evident, or apparent." 

You have stated that "Virtually every tax mitigation measure is a wealth transfer in favour of the most well off.  Welcome to the land of the obvious."

 I don't think it's controversial to say that many members of this forum would disagree that tax cuts typically favour the wealthy. This is usually a left wing argument.

If you believe the fact that tax cuts benefiting the wealthy is obvious, you're revealing a rather low opinion of many members of this site and their powers of perception, no? If "tax cuts benefiting the wealthy" was self-evident and apparent, Thucydides would have nothing to write about.


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Jan 2016)

The fact that most tax mitigation tends to favour well-off people - because tax mitigation often favours people with disposable income, or allows them to reduce taxable income at the top end - doesn't preclude it from favouring others.

Arguing against tax mitigation that benefits wage serfs in the middle class, on the basis that it also benefits well-off people, is not really a substantive objection.  "You can't have it, because they also get it" is childish.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Jan 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The fact that most tax mitigation tends to favour well-off people - because tax mitigation often favours people with disposable income, or allows them to reduce taxable income at the top end - doesn't preclude it from favouring others.
> 
> Arguing against tax mitigation that benefits wage serfs in the middle class, on the basis that it also benefits well-off people, is not really a substantive objection.  "You can't have it, because they also get it" is childish.



Those who oppose your views expressed here will never acknowledge that they are ignorant of how the system works.  They have a fantasy that somehow there is a magic method to make the rich pay while the less than 'rich' get off not having to pay.


----------



## McG (18 Feb 2016)

Here is some fun with numbers.  See the actual difference over a continuous range of incomes for the  2015 and new 2016 tax models.  Then (maybe) design your own tax system and compare it against the two.  

This is best viewed in newer versions of excel that allow you to right-click on charts and "select data" to show or hide the data sets you are not playing with.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Feb 2016)

While Kilo may think that TFSA's are only to benefit the well off, there are several threads on Army.ca, including mathematical models, which argues that this is not so. (The only people who do not benefit from TFSA's are people who do not get them).

On a more macro scale, the argument isn't so much who benefits from tax cuts, savings vehicles and so on, but rather what do the people who receive them do with their gains. The chief argument of nay sayers implies that the people who get money from tax cuts will preferentially hide the money under a mattress, which is counter to the way capitalist, free market systems work.

While you can indeed hide money under a mattress, Capitalism is about the accumulation _and use of_ capital. People who hoard their capital simply have dead capital (or in physics terms you might think of this as potential energy). However, even people who put their saving into a bank are using their capital in an admittedly low risk/low reward fashion, since the money is lent to others to pursue their goals. People who have accumulated more capital have more choices, and if they are more willing to take risk, they can potentially leverage their capital to create more wealth (in physics terms again, this is adding kinetic energy).

This is the argument for tax cuts, since capital in the hands of a large munger of people in the market provides more opportunities to attempt more things across a broad economic base, rather than having capital flow through the hands of bureaucrats and politicians who are both limited in time and knowledge to seek out the best rates of return, have no incentives to do so (their capital comes from your hands, not theirs) and _do_ have incentives to reward cronies and clients rather than steer capital to more productive uses.

At any rate, these arguments are moot at this point in time, as Gerald Butts' vision of Canada is Canadians are to be milked for the benefit of the LPC and their cronies, and even theoretical tax "cuts" will be rapidly overtaken by ever increasing "carbon" and "green" taxes and fees. Since the tax system is not going to be streamlined or simplified, the people with the connections and resources will be able to access tools to game the system, leaving an increasing tax burden on the rest of us. I will continue to remind you that the average Canadian family of 4 sends 40-45% of their income on taxes and fees, which leaves very little left over for savings and investment. Canada's anemic economic performance over the years can be largely traced back to the fundamental lack of capital in people's hands, and this tax burden is the primary cause.


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Feb 2016)

This from the Info-machine:


> The Honourable Gordon O'Connor, Minister of National Revenue, today announced the appointment of Mr. Paul Dubé as Canada's first Taxpayers' Ombudsman. The Taxpayers' Ombudsman will operate independently from the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) and will ensure that the CRA is more accountable to Canadians.
> 
> "Today's announcement, when combined with last year's introduction of the Taxpayers' Bill of Rights, clearly demonstrates our government commitment to strong accountability and tax fairness," said Minister O'Connor. "The Taxpayers' Ombudsman will ensure that Canadians receive a high standard of service from CRA."
> 
> ...


More @ the new 'budman's page here.


----------



## McG (29 Mar 2016)

Looks like more tax changes may be coming.  An end to boutique tax incentives would be a positive step.



> *Morneau signals review of targeted tax breaks is coming *
> Bruce Cheadle, The Canadian Press
> CTV News
> 25 Mar 2016
> ...


http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/morneau-signals-review-of-targeted-tax-breaks-is-coming-1.2832229


----------



## McG (4 Apr 2016)

More talk of ending the boutique tax cuts.  This prediction is not optimistic, but hopefully wrong in its pessimism.  Ending the boutiques would be the start point to finance across the board tax cuts.



> *Liberals talk about curbing tax giveaways. Good luck with that*
> Ottawa doles out some $100 billion in tax expenditures, gifts to special interests, annually
> By Neil Macdonald, CBC News
> 03 Apr 2016
> ...



http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tax-expenditures-giveaways-neil-macdonald-1.3515484


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 Apr 2016)

Although the article cites a large number overall ($100 billion), much of that is tied up in high value items that aren't likely to disappear from the T1.

For example, from Final Statistics 2015 edition (for the 2013 tax year), the totals for RPP and RRSP deductions are $19,507,836,000 and $39,145,913,000.  That's $58.5 billion, all of it deducted from net income to determine taxable income, so its value to taxpayers is likely much greater than the 15% of the non-refundable tax credits.  You can drill into the table by income class to get a finer grained estimate, but I suppose it is worth something north of 23% (the rate that kicks in for taxable incomes in the mid $40Ks); I estimate the cost is well north of $15 billion for those two items alone.

From the same tables, you can drill into some of the "boutique" items if you wish.  They are basically chump change (tens or hundreds of millions of dollars of total value to taxpayers for a particular item).  But, they would at least offset some of the chump change restraint/cuts the new government is restoring.

Note that total income assessed (line 150) is $1,226,271,866,000 and taxable income assessed is $1,092,325,095,000.  So $134 billion of potentially taxable income, worth the marginal rate of each taxpayer, disappears before you even get to tax credits.  15% of that is about $20 billion; I suppose the actual value to taxpayers is considerably higher.


----------

