The Prime Minister and the PMO - 2019

[FSTO]

TFSA comes to mind, and is a big one for those in a position to make use of it. Not many low income families for $5k and then $10k a year in disposable income to throw into tax sheltered investments. I recognize the tax savings come on investment returns, but compounded over years TFSA is massive and shifts a potentially tremendous amount of tax burden off the modestly wealthy.

In any case I am interpreting his statement the same way the Fraser Institute does- not whether someone pays into a particular tax regardless of receiving money back elsewhere, but whether an individual (or family) is a net contributor to or recipient of government payments. This strikes me as the only reasonable way to understand what he was saying, and as demonstrated, it’s true. When you receive more money back than you contribute, how can you meaningfully say you are ‘paying taxes’?

And of course, all of this is further in the context not of meaningful debate, but rather the absolute circus that is question period...

On the subject of TFSA, the Libs and NDP were being disingenuous in their criticism of this service because there is no minimum contribution amount. They made it sound you could only contribute the maximum amount, where in reality you can put in what you can afford and it's a very good saving plan.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

yes we use TFSA all the time and they are great, we were an 1 income family till 2 years ago, yet through careful money management were able to use those CPC tax breaks to improve our position. As for taxes in general, the feds are only in control of a portion of it.

there is also a parking tax which is almost 30%

There's 8.5 cents per litre in two separate motor fuel taxes and 7.78 cents per litre in the carbon tax. In the Vancouver area, there's an additional tax of 17 cents per litre that goes to TransLink. In the Victoria area there's a 5.5 cent tax for public transit — and then there's the tax the federal government collects.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_fuel_taxes_in_Canada

 

[PuckChaser]

TFSA comes to mind, and is a big one for those in a position to make use of it. Not many low income families for $5k and then $10k a year in disposable income to throw into tax sheltered investments. I recognize the tax savings come on investment returns, but compounded over years TFSA is massive and shifts a potentially tremendous amount of tax burden off the modestly wealthy.

Those evil TFSAs. How dare the CPC encourage people to save on their own for their retirement instead of only contributing to the government approved CPP!

 

[Brad Sallows]

TFSA isn't a tax aimed at millionaire families*.  It's certainly accessible to middle class families.

>When you receive more money back than you contribute, how can you meaningfully say you are ‘paying taxes’?

Because the taxes you paid are still a net loss to you.  The basic equation is "private income + public income - taxes = net income".  Or if you prefer, "income - taxes = net income".  The government deciding to provide benefits doesn't erase taxes, any more than you earning income erases taxes.  It's fallacious reasoning to conclude that receipt of benefits (or any other particular category of income) == not paying taxes.

 

[brihard]

Not sure why you guys think I’m crapping on TFSAs. I’m a fan- primarily because I’m in exactly the income range best able to use them. It suits me personally very nicely indeed. I brought it up in the context of a Conservative financial policy that provides considerable tax relief and which does little to nothing for low income families. Because again, all I’m talking about here is the rational analysis of what was actually said in the context of what was actually being talked about when that particular sound byte was generated. And, again, I’m referring to the quote qualified analysis provided by others who really know their stuff. Trudeau has said and done a lot of stupid stuff, but this particular thing - though a politically unfortunate sound byte - wasn’t what the CPC has gleefully tried to present it as.

 

[PuckChaser]

That's because the CPC tax plan isn't designed to give "relief" to low income families (who already pay less in total tax dollars and less in marginal tax rates than anyone else). The goal is to incentives for businesses to hire more workers, with higher pay rates due to lower corporate and payroll tax rates. Cutting the taxes of the sub $40K per year family income folks does nothing, getting them a $20K raise or more opportunities for better jobs is altogether way better for the economy.

You don't increase GDP by taxing the middle class more. You increase it by pushing up wages and decreasing the amount of people in the lowest tax bracket because they're going to spend all that money on houses, cars, items for their kids, etc.

 

[brihard]

That's because the CPC tax plan isn't designed to give "relief" to low income families (who already pay less in total tax dollars and less in marginal tax rates than anyone else). The goal is to incentives for businesses to hire more workers, with higher pay rates due to lower corporate and payroll tax rates. Cutting the taxes of the sub $40K per year family income folks does nothing, getting them a $20K raise or more opportunities for better jobs is altogether way better for the economy.

You don't increase GDP by taxing the middle class more. You increase it by pushing up wages and decreasing the amount of people in the lowest tax bracket because they're going to spend all that money on houses, cars, items for their kids, etc.

Absolutely- I agree almost fully, and I'm good with that. I'm not debating the merits of the respective tax plans, I'm just discussing the CPC's painfully shrill reaction to a soundbyte that, in proper context, was found by qualified analysis to be pretty accurate. But really this whole thing has done a nice job of highlighting how petty and largely pointless Question Period has been allowed to become...

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Absolutely- I agree almost fully, and I'm good with that. I'm not debating the merits of the respective tax plans, I'm just discussing the CPC's painfully shrill reaction to a soundbyte that, in proper context, was found by qualified analysis to be pretty accurate. But really this whole thing has done a nice job of highlighting how petty and largely pointless Question Period has been allowed to become...

And it became pointless right after the election, when it became obvious, that the grit caucus wasn't going to answer any questions properly or even address the issues being questioned. Their vain, amateur attempts at conjuring the responses of the Velvet Fog have failed them miserably. It is the grits that have made a mockery of the House with their evasiveness.

But that's likely Harper's fault. 8)

 

[PuckChaser]

But really this whole thing has done a nice job of highlighting how petty and largely pointless Question Period has been allowed to become...

We need this guy as the Speaker. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4v7wddN-Wg Better video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6X5F7jhQZd8

 

[brihard]

And it became pointless right after the election, when it became obvious, that the grit caucus wasn't going to answer any questions properly or even address the issues being questioned. Their vain, amateur attempts at conjuring the responses of the Velvet Fog have failed them miserably. It is the grits that have made a mockery of the House with their evasiveness.

But that's likely Harper's fault. 8)

Question Period has been a farce since long before this government. That's hardly unique to the Liberals. It was just as much of a joke under the CPC and will be again if they get re-elected.

Nothing about QP puts any onus on anyone to make constructive use of the time... The entire endeavour seems to be about attempting to get exactly this sort of 'gotcha' sound byte out of the other guys. Sure as hell nothing meaningful towards legislation or policy is happening in there- by anyone.

 

[Brad Sallows]

OK, so we're talking about two different things or seeing things in two different contexts.  I'm looking at the issues in the context of Trudeau's long-standing theme of "millionaire families", by which I assume he means those capable of very conspicuous consumption (executive-style homes, luxury autos, high-end liquor and entertainments, etc), because "millionaire" in 2019 isn't the same as "millionaire" in 1979 if all we mean is "net worth".

If the TFSA discussion wasn't a response to my somewhat rhetorical challenge to identify a tax break aimed at millionaire families, then I understand what you meant differently.

Trudeau's responses were a pretty stereotypical sequence - start with the big lie/misrepresentation (about breaks for millionaire families) that is meant to be the sound bite people will remember (critical of Conservatives, of course), then walk it back to a very limited factual claim (specific reference to non-refundable credits, which he could have walked back one step further with a direct reference to the fitness/arts credits, given a chance) which the "fact-checkers" can leverage to report the claim as "mostly/wholly true", which is then (unfortunately) misreported/conflated with the original claim to give it verisimilitude.  It's a popular technique.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>the grit caucus wasn't going to answer any questions properly

Neither did the Conservatives.  I was never satisfied with their QP behaviour.  As I noted in previous post, QP is primarily used as an opportunity to get sound bites out.  An incurious or partisan person isn't going to make it very clear when "informing" others that point X was basically bull, and point Y was factually correct.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Gerald Butts Resigns PMO position

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trudeau-s-principal-secretary-gerald-butts-resigns-1.4301856#_gus&_gucid=&_gup=twitter&_gsc=mHavDaI

OTTAWA -- Gerald Butts, Justin Trudeau's principal secretary and long-time friend, has resigned amid allegations that the Prime Minister's Office interfered to prevent a criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin.

In a statement, Butts unequivocally denies the accusation that he or anyone else in the office improperly pressured former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould to help the Montreal engineering giant avoid a criminal case on corruption and bribery charges related to government contracts in Libya.

Nevertheless, Butts says the allegation is distracting from the "vital work" Trudeau is doing so it's in the best interests of the Prime Minister's Office for him to step aside.

"I categorically deny the accusation that I or anyone else in his office pressured Ms. Wilson-Raybould ... At all times, I and those around me acted with integrity and singular focus on the best interests of all Canadians," he says.

"Any accusation that I or the staff put pressure on the attorney general is simply not true ... But the fact is that this accusation exists. It cannot and should not take one moment away from the vital work the prime minister and his office is doing for all Canadians.

"My reputation is my responsibility and that is for me to defend. It is in the best interests of the office and its important work for me to step away."

Wilson-Raybould resigned from Trudeau's cabinet last week. She has not explained why and she has not commented on the allegation, levelled by anonymous sources in a Globe and Mail story 10 days ago, that she was improperly pressured, citing solicitor-client privilege. She has hired a former Supreme Court justice to advise her on what she may legally say.

Butts is one of several top Trudeau aides the opposition parties had wanted to call before the House of Commons justice committee to testify on what happened. Liberal MPs on the committee last week used their majority to limit the scope of the committee's inquiry.

Butts has confirmed that Wilson-Raybould briefly raised the matter of SNC-Lavalin during a meeting in December; he advised her to speak with the clerk of the Privy Council, Michael Wernick.

In his statement, Butts writes positively of his relationship with Wilson-Raybould.

"I encouraged her to run for the Liberal Party of Canada and worked hard to support her as a candidate and then cabinet minister. From my perspective, our relationship has always been defined by mutual respect, candour and an honest desire to work together."

Butts says he's served Trudeau "to the best of my abilities and I have at all times given the prime minister free and unfettered advice.

"I have served the public interest, not the interests of any individual or any narrow private interest of any kind, at any time. Life is full of uncertainties but I am absolutely certain of that."


More at Link

Good riddance. However, I don't think we've seen the last of him. He'll likely still have a great deal of influence. This looks like a move to position him from scrutiny while he continues his policies. Or maybe he'll jump on board with Dalton Gore-McGuinty.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Like a loyal samurai falling in his sword.

 

[Remius]

Like a loyal samurai falling in his sword.

Romans fell on their swords.  Samurai sliced their stomachs open from left to right.

 

[Rifleman62]

Pending: A real he said, she said. Who would you believe when testifying under oath?

 

[Remius]

Pending: A real he said, she said. Who would you believe when testifying under oath?

I'll take what's in the box Monty.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Three sides to every story.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Pending: A real he said, she said. Who would you believe when testifying under oath?

I'd say that's a given. Between these two, JWR has always seemed a straight shooter and I don't know her that well. Butts however, has all those years killing Ontario and lying about it to bolster his profile.
A proven record, if you will, against speculation.

 

[Remius]

Anybody else starting to think that Robert Fife has some sort of superpower to take down governments?