The Trudeau Liberals 2016 Tax Plans

[George Wallace]

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.

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]

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]

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: 

.........  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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Perhaps "jealousy"?

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

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]

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]

>"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]

So we should expect "The MacKay Report"? 

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

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]

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.

And please stop playing the TROLL.

I was asking a honest question.

No offense intended. Was just curious.

 

[George Wallace]

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]

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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 ...