CPCFTW

Not sure about that. Remember that Harper was constrained by a long recession and budgetary deficits, plus a commitment/mandate to balance the budget. Now that the budget is balanced I would anticipate surpluses will translate into significant tax breaks, barring another great recession.I think you have to ask yourself who you'd rather have at the steering wheel with budget surpluses. I think the liberals will spend the surpluses on expensive public infrastructure projects and public sector union raises. I think the conservatives will just cut taxes. In any case, if you assume 2 more 8% basic personal exemption increases, it's approximately a $300/yr tax break. Additionally, the increased tfsa room would save approx $5k in taxes over a 10 year period with reasonable return expectations. Those two measures alone would save you almost $10k in taxes over 10 years. Maybe you'll get married and have kids during that time and save even more! I'm neither married nor do I have kids either but I think it's pretty naive to think Trudeau's liberals will provide a better long-term economic outcome to anyone except public servants.

Yes and Harper raised it 8% several times on top of the regular inflation increases. Read the report.

Read the pbo report (revenue and distribution analysis of federal tax changes). Everyone is better off under Harper, and the cuts have been mostly progressive. In particular there is the WITB, the lowest bracket rate has been reduced, the gst cut, and the basic personal exemption has been increased significantly.

Here`s a few: Balanced the budget Lowered corporate taxes Introduced TFSA Lowered personal taxes And the most impressive part of these achievements are the economic and political headwinds he has faced to achieve them. An opposition that repeatedly threatened to topple his governments without increased spending, a global economic downturn unparalleled in depth and duration other than during the great depression, and a collapse in global oil prices. In a world where many Europeans and Americans are feeling far worse off today than 10 years ago, Harper has managed to actually improve the economic prospects of most Canadians. He should be proud.

I was the same as you.. I was a die hard socialist from around 16-20ish, then flip flopped pretty quickly into a die hard fiscal conservative. I think getting an education in business/finance and starting to pay taxes has that effect on people. Business/financial education should really be a part of high school curriculums if we're going to give 18 year olds the right to vote to seize assets from other members of society to fuel their childish utopian dreams.

No a lifetime income tax: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifetime_income_tax

Yeah I'm not a big fan of wealth tax either. That's why I suggested a lifetime income tax. I would see it as a surtax type thing, not completely replacing income taxes, but something that would allow us to reduce taxes on people earning their first million and then increase taxes thereafter. Then maybe there'd be more than one Elon Musk. As I noted from the start of this conversation, high tax rates on high incomes slows down class mobility. If our best and brightest are making 100-200k in their mid-20s, I'd like a tax regime that accelerates them towards accumulating enough wealth to begin thinking about entrepreneurship in their early 30s instead of their 40s.

That's exactly what we're talking about. I'm glad that we're now in agreement that wealth, not income, is a what needs to be addressed in order to create an equitable society. As you've noted, perceptions need to be changed so that the public can stop focusing their jealousy towards those with high incomes, and instead focus on those with a high networth. I think moving towards taxation of lifetime earnings is a good start, as I suggested many pages ago.

What? Governments typically tax income, not wealth.. They are two different concepts. Are you really this dense? Do yourself a favor and look up wealth tax. And ROFL at that comment about financial advisors. I have 10x the financial education as most financial advisors.

So better off than nearly half of Canadians is wealthy these days? Wow the standard keeps getting lower!

No he wouldn't be considered wealthy.. He'd just become wealthy in a few months rather than the decades it normally takes people to become wealthy. Would you consider a career AHL player that is 200k in debt to be wealthy because they get called up to the NHL for 2 games and are paid at a 820k/yr rate (10k/game) for those 2 games? Of course not because income is not a measure of wealth.

Someone that has a low or negative net worth and a high income is not wealthy. This isn't rocket science guys.

Big talk? I'm specifically stating that I'm not wealthy. What a childish comment. And we're not taking about million dollar incomes, which is an irrelevant outlier, we are talking about young professionals making 80-120k being labeled wealthy even though many have small or negative networths. IMO employment taxes should be based on lifetime earnings.

I live in a rented basement and walk to work. I'm not wealthy but I make 90k. Not sure why that's so hard for you guys to comprehend. Maybe when you move out of your parents homes you'll realize employment income is transient and irrelevant when defining the wealthy.

The difference you don't understand is that if I lose my job I'm homeless within 2yrs, if you're wealthy then you don't ever become homeless. And I have no home or car or spouse. Just trying to save enough of my income to try to actually be in the upper class.. And not just your ignorant definition of class.