Politics in 2015

[Altair]

I will report back after tax time and let you know if I am better off...

This isn't about you.

Why do single people and couple who earn similar amounts need to subsidize married people?

 

[Altair]

A lot of military families should expect to pay more this year as opposed to seeing a cut.  See again:Income splitting kept more money in the military family with max benefit being seen at a lower income level.  It is not a wash.

Somehow I don't see income splitting helping the all the single members.

Again, why are single people and those who earn similar amounts of money subsidizing married people?

 

[McG]

Why do single people and couple who earn similar amounts need to subsidize married people?

Letting families with kids keep the money they earned is subsiding them?  Do you feel entitled to everybody's paycheck?

Let's look at it this way, every form of child benefit system proposed by any political party looks at household income and not each parent individually.  If household income is the fair benchmark to determine where to send more money, then why is household income not the fair benchmarck when taxing money out of those same households?

Yes, this does not fairly answer the single parent conundrum.  So, maybe single parents can split their income with one dependent.  Now everybody is happy.

Going back again.  Before laying claim to other people's money, you claimed the change was "a wash" and it all evens out.  You have since been presented with arguments to show that is not necessarily the case and military families may very well find themselves paying a lot more this year.  Are you trying to avoid addressing that you may have made a second inaccurate statement with "calling it a wash"?

 

[Altair]

Letting families with kids keep the money they earned is subsiding them?  Do you feel entitled to everybody's paycheck?

Let's look at it this way, every form of child benefit system proposed by any political party looks at household income and not each parent individually.  If household income is the fair benchmark to determine where to send more money, then why is household income not the fair benchmarck when taxing money out of those same households?

Yes, this does not fairly answer the single parent conundrum.  So, maybe single parents can split their income with one dependent.  Now everybody is happy.

Going back again.  Before laying claim to other people's money, you claimed the change was "a wash" and it all evens out.  You have since been presented with arguments to show that is not necessarily the case and military families may very well find themselves paying a lot more this year.  Are you trying to avoid addressing that you may have made a second inaccurate statement with "calling it a wash"?

I'm calling it a wash because while married military families may end up pay more (saving less) there are many other members who will benifit from a tax cut. Single members especially. What does income splitting get them?Are they less deserving of getting money they earned back from the government?

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but does income splitting have anything to do with children? From what I understood it could be used by any married couple,  kids or no kids.

So while it may not be a wash for everybody in every individual scenario, it does on a whole since everyone who earns between 45 and 200k qualifies for the tax cut. The income splitting mainly benifits married people who have one person who earns more than the other.

 

[Remius]

I'm a single parent.  Income splitting does nothing for me.

 

[Halifax Tar]

This isn't about you.

Why do single people and couple who earn similar amounts need to subsidize married people?

Why ?  Because as Orwellian as it sound it is in the states best interest to encourage people to have children to keep the population stable or growing.  And it is in the states best interest to provide as good of a QOL as is possible for those children.

I know creepy eh.  Get married, have a kid and you get the benefit(s) but piss off if you're jealous because you don't.

 

[McG]

... Correct me if I'm wrong, but does income splitting have anything to do with children? From what I understood it could be used by any married couple, kids or no kids.

It has everything to do with children.  Like your earlier suggestion that income splitting only benefit households with an individual earning over $400k, you are again wrong.  Households must have children to be eligible for income splitting.  You hold surprisingly strong opinions on a topic about which you are demonstrating yourself to be ignorant.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

There has always been a concept in taxation matters that everyone is entitled to legally arrange their affairs so as to minimize the amount of taxes they pay.

So everybody: Get married and have children.  :subbies:

 

[GAP]

There has always been a concept in taxation matters that everyone is entitled to legally arrange their affairs so as to minimize the amount of expenses and taxes they pay.

So everybody: Get married and have children.  :subbies:

Hmmmm......so you replace taxes with the expense of having children......one does equate with the other....taxes are cheaper......

mind....taxes don't bring the joy of children, so maybe that's not correct....

 

[PuckChaser]

So everybody: Get married and have children.  :subbies:

It's what the government wants, so why not incentivize it? More children = larger tax base in the future, something we're going to need to cover pension costs of retiring baby boomers.

 

[jollyjacktar]

It has everything to do with children.  Like your earlier suggestion that income splitting only benefit households with an individual earning over $400k, you are again wrong.  Households must have children to be eligible for income splitting.  You hold surprisingly strong opinions on a topic about which you are demonstrating yourself to be ignorant.

:brickwall:

 

[a_majoor]

The larger meta issue is *we* collectively pay far too much in terms of taxes, and get generally shoddy results for the massive prices we pay for education, health care, defense etc.

Rather than splitting hairs on various boutique tax cuts designed to pander to particular demographics, lets just agree to a broad based government spending cut (say 20% of the 2014 baseline) and a corresponding broad based tax cut for everyone (bring tax expenditures for Canadian families of four from the current 40-45% of income to 30-35% of income).

There is plenty of fat to cut; Edward has a list of thousands of "small" programs and offices which the vast majority of Canadians would never notice if eliminated, I can point to over 700 overlapping government grant programs, and there are government offices and departments doing things not mandated in the BNA or Constitution act, or doing things which are Provincial responsibilities. Eliminating this overlap could save billions (I read an estimate some time ago which suggested the elimination of overlapping government departments alone would save @ $19 billion). There are many other places for fat cutting as well.

However, since modern politics seems to be based on massive applications of pork rather than the best interests of the taxpayers, then politics will continue to resemble clear cutting of forests rather than the cultivation and development of a broad based economy.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Unfortunately, Thuc. when it comes to the Federal government intruding into provincial fields of responsibility (on the basis of what is known, get this, as the "federal spending power"), the only two provinces that ever protest are Alberta and Quebec, even if for different reasons.

P.s.: Few people realize that when it comes to how the Canadian constitution is meant to work, Alberta and Quebec's views are closer to one another than any other two provinces and err to the side of Provincial primacy over Federal one.

 

[George Wallace]

Perhaps we need to take a look back in history for the REAL answers.  Perhaps JKF had it most right in December 1962 and had a much simpler explanation than all the modern day economists.

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

 

[c_canuk]

Altair,

You and the liberals seem to be missing the big picture.

Child care is subsidized. If more families keep one person at home to raise the children several things happen.

1) The amount of your income spent on daycare for other people's kids drops.
2) The labour pool shrinks causing the price per unit of work to go up, meaning you get paid more.
3) Incentivises children so our taxable population maintains stability, so all the other social programs can be funded.

Income splitting helps everyone. The conservatives got blasted on income splitting because it didn't help the poor, then got blasted because UCCB changes didn't help the middle class, and now the liberals are undoing those changes that helped the poor and middle class to fund tax cuts that benefit the upper middle and upper-class.

Another reason families with single incomes should be able to keep a bit more money is because flat fees hit them harder than anyone else. If you have a double income, you don't need a break. If you're single you don't need a break.

Underfunding children's needs cause knock on socio economic problems that cost everyone more money.

If the kids of today are not nurtured to become productive, they become drains on the system in the future. When you're old and grey you will need to rely on today's children to keep the lights on. You short them now for pennies you'll be paying in dollars or worse later.

This plan hurts everyone, but you are championing it because you'll get an extra 55 a month for yourself and take 110 a month away from people struggling to raise the children that will keep the system going when you need to rely on it the most. I’m spending that 110 a month making sure my children are educated and get meaningful extra-curricular. What are you going to spend your 55 dollars on while my kids go without?

167 dollars goes a long way for me. a week's healthy groceries, new shoes and clothes or a snow suit for both my kids etc. We're talking 5% of our household income here. This is a significant issue.

If the liberals want to help everyone, raise the basic personal amount from 10 to 20K. That will do more to help than anything else.

How about outlaw flat fees for services? How about outlaw service charges to deliver services? my power usage was $36 dollars last month, but the bill was 147 after fees. How the hell is that fair for those of us not in the upper middle to upper class?

 

[George Wallace]

Were the Public more aware than the Liberals?


Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

John Ivison: Who could have predicted these problems for the Liberals? Absolutely everyone
John Ivison
December 7, 2015 - Last Updated: Dec 7 8:33 PM ET

Who could have predicted the Liberal plan to raise taxes on top earners would not pay for a $3.4-billion cut for the middle class?

Who could have forecast that the Liberal pledge to withdraw fighter jets from Iraq would rupture relations with the Americans?

Apart from absolutely everyone, that is.

Justin Trudeau’s first Question Period as prime minister was a miserable affair for the government, so exposed is it on two policy positions that never made any sense – beyond being blatant political bait for voters so hungry for change they were prepared to swallow any mendacity.

Bill Morneau, the finance minister, conceded in a late afternoon press conference that reducing the middle income bracket tax rate for nine million Canadians, while simultaneously raising the rate for the 319,000 taxpayers earning more than $200,000, would not be “revenue neutral,” as the election platform had claimed.

The tax cut will amount to an average cut of $330 for individuals and $540 for couples — which is welcome relief. But there must be serious doubts about the affordability of the measure — something the Liberals would have known, even as they sold it as a wash financially.

The day the proposal was released in early May, the CD Howe Institute’s research director, Alexandre Laurin, told me the tax package would never pay for itself. Experience in other jurisdictions such as the U.K. showed that tax receipts fall because people find ways to reduce their taxable income.

He released a paper to that effect last week, suggesting the new income tax rate of 33% would yield less new revenue than the Liberals had suggested.

The government admitted as much Monday, saying the new tax changes would cost a net amount of $1.2 billion a year for the next five years.

Morneau has already given a fiscal update suggesting that slower than expected growth has turned a forecast surplus this fiscal year into a deficit of $3 billion, before any Liberal campaign promises are factored in.

The new government had pledged that it would rack up deficits of $25 billion over three years, before returning to surplus in 2019-20.

This political shape-shifting is already becoming a familiar routine for this government

The finance minister would not comment on whether he thought the deficits would grow bigger than $10 billion a year, beyond saying he remains committed to a return to balance by the end of the Liberal mandate.

The Liberals estimated the net cost of their annual spending promises at around $10 billion but, as we have seen with the cost of bringing in 25,000 Syrian refugees and now the middle-class tax cut, that platform is as reliable a guide to true costs as a contractor’s home improvement estimate.

On a day when the TSX tumbled 300 points, the loonie reached its weakest level in 11 years and crude oil prices dipped below $40 a barrel, it was not the best of times to send the signal that public finances are in danger of spinning out of control.

If Morneau had an uncomfortable afternoon, so did Trudeau.

Rona Ambrose, the interim Conservative leader, proved quietly effective in badgering him on the withdrawal of CF-18 fighter jets from the Middle East.

She noted there was no mention of Canada in a televised speech delivered the previous evening by President Barack Obama, in which he said America’s “closest allies” — France, Germany and the U.K. — are ramping up the fight against ISIL.

“Why are we stepping back from the fight when our allies are stepping up?” she asked.

The prime minister replied that his government remains committed to ending air strikes but will transform Canadian engagement into a different kind of mission — “equally militarily” — to ensure we continue to be a strong member of the coalition against ISIL.

When the Liberals first decided to abandon the military mission in Iraq, it was a calculation based on the war losing public support, particularly in Quebec. The commitment was to a “military role of a non-combat nature.”

Yet there remains broad public support for the fight against ISIL, particularly after the Paris shootings, and the Liberal position seems to be morphing to reflect that reality.

A new role that is “equally militarily” as bombing does not suggest non-combat. And if it is a combat role, why pull back the jets in the first place?

This political shape-shifting is already becoming a familiar routine for this government. In an election campaign, it’s easy to be on everyone’s side, whatever side they are on.

But, beyond sunny ways, this is a government that looks to be light on core principles. It had best discover some, before it loses yet more credibility.

National Post

• Email: jivison@nationalpost.com

More on LINK.

Meanwhile, the Canadian Dollar is taking a beating.

 

[Altair]

It has everything to do with children.  Like your earlier suggestion that income splitting only benefit households with an individual earning over $400k, you are again wrong.  Households must have children to be eligible for income splitting.  You hold surprisingly strong opinions on a topic about which you are demonstrating yourself to be ignorant.

I love how you harp on where I am in fact wrong(even though I started off by saying I might be, skewer me anyways) and completely ignore the rest of my post.

 

[Altair]

Why ?  Because as Orwellian as it sound it is in the states best interest to encourage people to have children to keep the population stable or growing.  And it is in the states best interest to provide as good of a QOL as is possible for those children.

I know creepy eh.  Get married, have a kid and you get the benefit(s) but piss off if you're jealous because you don't.

i am married and have kids.

I just feel that the state helps me out enough for those personal choices while those who work hard and pay taxes but have sinned because they haven't married and gotten kids are receiving very little of their hard earned money back

 

[Altair]

Altair,

You and the liberals seem to be missing the big picture.

Child care is subsidized. If more families keep one person at home to raise the children several things happen.

1) The amount of your income spent on daycare for other people's kids drops.
2) The labour pool shrinks causing the price per unit of work to go up, meaning you get paid more.
3) Incentivises children so our taxable population maintains stability, so all the other social programs can be funded.

Income splitting helps everyone. The conservatives got blasted on income splitting because it didn't help the poor, then got blasted because UCCB changes didn't help the middle class, and now the liberals are undoing those changes that helped the poor and middle class to fund tax cuts that benefit the upper middle and upper-class.

Another reason families with single incomes should be able to keep a bit more money is because flat fees hit them harder than anyone else. If you have a double income, you don't need a break. If you're single you don't need a break.

Underfunding children's needs cause knock on socio economic problems that cost everyone more money.

If the kids of today are not nurtured to become productive, they become drains on the system in the future. When you're old and grey you will need to rely on today's children to keep the lights on. You short them now for pennies you'll be paying in dollars or worse later.

This plan hurts everyone, but you are championing it because you'll get an extra 55 a month for yourself and take 110 a month away from people struggling to raise the children that will keep the system going when you need to rely on it the most. I’m spending that 110 a month making sure my children are educated and get meaningful extra-curricular. What are you going to spend your 55 dollars on while my kids go without?

167 dollars goes a long way for me. a week's healthy groceries, new shoes and clothes or a snow suit for both my kids etc. We're talking 5% of our household income here. This is a significant issue.

If the liberals want to help everyone, raise the basic personal amount from 10 to 20K. That will do more to help than anything else.

How about outlaw flat fees for services? How about outlaw service charges to deliver services? my power usage was $36 dollars last month, but the bill was 147 after fees. How the hell is that fair for those of us not in the upper middle to upper class?

Its 55 extra for a lot of people who wouldn't have qualified for income splitting, like single parents.

As for those with kids, it's not like they will going without. With the new Liberal child benefit a lot of people making less than 200k a year will be walking away with more, tax free.

So I don't think the liberals don't get it. Looks like they balanced it our fairly well.

How many here have calculated their new child benefits payments into the tax cut vs income splitting math?

 

[Journeyman]

I love how you harp on where I am in fact wrong....

It just seems like harping if one keeps repeating variations of the same falsehood, which draws repeated condemnations.

Perhaps if you posted something different it would garner a different response?  :dunno: