Martin Chriton

At 15$/hr it's up to a ~140,000 benefit At 20$/hr it's up to a ~190,000 benefit I pay my nanny equivalent to $24 CAD/hr and $36/hr CAD for overtime, albeit I live in the US not Canada. I didn't include any overtime/weekend hours in my calculations -- there would likely be some. It's possible his total childcare benefit will be as high as $200-250,000/yr.

I've already explained this a few times on the thread, but let me do it yet again.... since some folks have trouble with basic math and/or tax law. 20/hr @ 40 hrs/week @ 52 weeks/yr = $41600/nanny For two nannies that is $83200/yr Now if someone at 200k+ gross income wanted to hire two nannies, they'd have to use *post-tax* money, pre-tax the $83200 becomes $83200/0.47=$177021 benefit. That is, if you make a $377021 salary, you'd lose $177,021 gross to cover the two nannies ($93810 in taxes by parent, .$83200 in gross to nanny, for which there is another $12344 in taxes from or so from the nannies -- bringing the total tax rate on the nanny dollars to 60%) I also didn't include employer contributions for CPP/EI which is another $5000-$10000 IIRC, total beneft therefore likely close to $190k) Notice how his 190k nanny benefit is getting very close to his 200k+ salary threshold at which it just so easy to pay for childcare! LOL.

If you followed the election he suggested that those with 200k+ incomes don't need help from the public for childcare. There are many at 200k+ that work longer hours than he does as PM and are expected to pay their 'fair' share of taxes and cover their own childcare costs under his plan. Also, are you suggesting he should only bill 1/2 these costs? If so, it looks like you also have concerns with tax payers fully funding his nannies.

How is it stupid? How is it not stupid to tax nanny dollars at 65-70%. This policy reduces the affordablity hence reducing employment and also encourages folks to pay under the table. Furthermore, it's almost certain Juston won't be paying tax on his nanny benefit, so why should others at 200k+ be paying double tax?

It seems unlikely he'll pay taxes on this. So, hopefully we agree there is a problem here.

For those that support Justin on this. Can you answer these questions: 1.) If you think this is justified, do you think it should be a taxable benefit for Justin? If not, do you support changing the tax code so that others at 200k+ aren't double taxed in a similar situations. 2.) Do you believe the taxpayer should cover nanny costs during future fundraisers and campaign events?

Again, he campaigned on 200k+ earners and suggested those in that group can pay for it themselves.

He spent the campaign saying he had more than enough money to support his children and others in the 200k+ bracket could do so as well. If he believes that childcare should be covered in his case, then clearly there are exceptions to his campaign assertion that everyone at 200k+ can pay for it themselves. And in that case, it's worth looking at how the tax laws can be restructured to enable private employers to (tax) efficiently offer similar benefits. For those saying the PM role is special, the job is important, but again, there are more demanding jobs (by time) than PM and some of these jobs often require decades of work on a career prior. To demonstrate, considering the following two scenarios. Scenaro 1: Single parent family income at $200,000 and no kids Parent Income: $200,000 Parent Taxes: $72,157 Scenaro 2: Single parent family income at $200,000, with kids, and a nanny 20$/hr @ 40hrs a week = $41600 /yr Parent Income: $200,000 Parent Taxes: $72,157 Nanny salary: $41600 Nanny Taxes: $6,172 Total taxes: $78329 ------- The government is making an extra $6,172 in taxes in scenario #2 vs #1. And possibly a lot more if the nanny was taken off unemployment. A combined tax rate of around 65% for the income the nanny finally sees. I don't see the need for the government to try to profit off families with children. A deduction to help bring the double tax down in scenario #2 seems perfectly reasonable - it doesn't need to get all the way to #1. In my view Justin should either pay for it himself OR fix the tax laws for others at 200k+ with children. (Tax numbers from https://simpletax.ca/calculator)

It's interesting because of the hypocrisy. Childcare is expensive even with a 200k+ income. Justin is asking folks in this range to <1> lose income splitting, <2> lose UCCB, and <3> take a higher marginal tax rate -- and then make exceptions for himself. Moving to the US @ 200k+ gives you income splitting, some level of tax deductions for child care, +50-60% higher gross pay (in some fields such as tech/sw dev). I moved to the US many years ago, it’s definitely not going to be any easier to move back after these changes! :angry: Note that I’m not saying easier than all at 200k+, just that there are harder jobs in the 200k+ bracket. For PM, you need little executive experience and experience is often seen as a detriment. It is more demanding on time than the average job, but as I noted in my original post PMs/Presidents often have time for fundraisers, campaigning, and vacations. Clearly, there are others in 200k+ that work longer hours at the job they’re paid to do, I know folks that literally work 16-18 hours a day seven days a week.

He told us he doesn't need it! He asserted during the election that those with incomes greater than 200k+ didn't need it. His job is easier than others at 200k+. It's logistically challenging for many (especially smaller) employers to do this. Some employers that run daycare facilies get business tax deducations. Others might not have the scale to run their own facilities. For at home nannies or offsite childcare I expect tax situations become more challenging. Clearly he sees value in having childcare covered in his case, for an income above 200k+, and if so, structuring the tax code such that others at 200k+ can have childcare without double taxation * seems equitable. * double taxation = tax paid by family needing childcare on income + tax paid by childcare provider on the same income

It's an issue because Justin used this as a wedge issue in the election. He asserted millionaires (defined as 200k+ incomes) don't need tax payer assistance and then has an exception *only* for him. For those trying to justify this because it's a 24/7 job -- it's is still NOT fair. Many jobs in the ‘1%’ require 24/7 commitment – often for *decades* to reach that level. In my case, I worked 16-18 hours a day seven days a week for two decades to reach my current income level (it’s above the 200k threshold). The path to become PM is often much shorter with less *overall* work. I also don’t believe the PM job is truly 24/7 -- notice how much time PMs or presidents have for vacations, campaigning or fundraisers – quantitatively the workload is lower than many ‘millionaires’ -- who will get NO support for their children. Almost everyone I know at the 200k+ level took many personal sacrifices to get there. To pay for childcare (daycare or nanny), income is taxed at your personal rate and then taxed by the childcare provider (double taxed). It seems perfectly reasonable to provide some tax relief for those above 200k+ to at least have a tax deduction for the childcare expenses – this would allow them to continue to invest in their career and also provide a job opportunity for a childcare provider. The money would still be taxed just not taxed twice. You can keep it revenue neutral by raising the overall upper bracket. Kids are required for future of the economy. As an aside, the optics for nannygate could get worse for Justin. It will be interesting to see if he covers the nanny bill for campaign and/or fundraiser events. Justin should but he has been unethical so far.

It seems almost certain there will be a US-style housing correction within the next few years -- given the data. The sad part is Canada has the benefit of hindsight which other countries did not have. If I owned Canadian real-state I would sell now. Especially if I owned a Toronto condo. Very little chance of appreciation in the next 4-7 years and high chance of a crash. Easy sell. If you sell now and buy again after the crash you could save/make hundreds of thousands of dollars. I live in California now and those that sold pre-peak are very pleased with how things turned out.

Interesting, I also work for a semi-conductor company. There a number with offices: ATI - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATI_Technologies (ATI was acquired by AMD but ATI office still in Canada) Sandvine - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandvine Altera (not based in Canada but has offices) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altera In the short term raising taxes probably makes little impact as you say. However, over time it will continue to motivate people to move outside the country when they graduate or move for their next job. In the long term, Canada should try and do more than just natural resources. Some misc facts from my perspective: 1. If taxes were lowered in line with what I'm paying now in the US -- Canada would be getting 6-figures of taxes from me a year -- whereas now Canada gets *zero*. (I'm free to work remotely without even switching jobs -- I could move back today if I wanted). 2. When I graduated from Waterloo (comp eng) all the top students I knew moved out of the Country. For various reasons or others, but taxes were a big negative everyone always talked about. 3. The people that founded startups did so in the US. 4. Many folks in the tech industry make more than 250k if they're good. I've made more than that for a few years now (and I'm only 27). I have friends at Apple and Google that also make more than 250k. 5. For #2, everyone that left Canada kept their subsidized eduction but never had to pay anything back. Another reason to raise tuition and make loans easier -- at least Canada would be getting something and taxes would be (marginally) lower for those who remain. I graduated with money in the bank through a combination of internships and cheap tuition.

That's a fair point. I don't know the breakdown -- I'm in technology -- which is extremely mobile. Certainly folks in other fields such as medicine and law should be able to relocate. I've read that there are millions of Canadians living in the US already. Talented people don't normally have a challenge relocating from my experience.

I don't understand why anyone with high salaries would stay in the province. I grew up in Ontario but left many years back -- the high tax rates were definitely a big factor. I moved to the US and on average save 30k-50k a year. I make > 250k but less than 500k. Regardless, moves like this don't inspire me to move back anytime soon. 50k while not a huge amount of money it adds up over the years. Everyone I grew up with in Ontario that also grosses over 250k has left as well. Instead of complaining -- just fix the problem for yourself and leave.

It depends where you live, 100k in Toronto probably isn't 'wealthy'. I grew up in Canada but living in one of the most expensive US cities and make around ~250k but I can't even afford a decent house in my area (living in an apartment). -- These poll results I don't find all too surprising given the generalities in the questions. If they asked specifics, e.g.: would you pay another $5000 in taxes to: 1.) Raise teacher salaries or pensions 2.) Raise public sector salaries (while private sector folks are being laid off) 3.) etc I imagine the response would've been much more negative. Agree w/ others you could phrase the questions to get the conclusions you were looking for.

Good decision to drop out. I'm glad they actually talked about the options, e.g.: <1> pay $14 billion and meet Kytoto or <2> drop out and save 14,000,000,000. It would be good the gov. actually published job savings over what the Liberal's signed us up for, e.g.: 14 billion is saving XXX,000 jobs. Good contrast to green party leader crying that we didn't lay all those folks off.

So in your opinion, Canadian's should pay a small minority $77 trillion? 77 trillion / 33 million = $2 333 333 per Canadian. Obviously, Canadian's won't agree to that, hence that idea isn't viable. Depends on how you look at it: * Longer things take the weaker the claims become. * Laws will over time be adjusted to match values most canadian's believe in (e.g.: we're all equal no two classes of people) Personally, I'd be happy with downscaling some of the current agreements.

What *specially* do you think Canadian's should pay first natives? You throughout 75 trillion or some other bogus number. If you think Canadian's will pay that you're out to lunch. Most Canadian won't agree with anything that noticeably impacts their tax bill or property.

Depends on what they want... let's see them try to reclaim Toronto and occupying banks, businesses, etc. They would be cleaned up rather quickly.

A question is how much taxes would the avg Canadian have to pay before they want these laws changed? I think any noticable tax impact would add much public support for changing the laws. It is worth costing out what we currently pay for the average tax payer for the first nations. Perhaps, if that was more public, more folks would be for abolishing the current tax subsidies? Does anyone know the current stats?

See my last post, if the settlement is as claimed: "Not that I doubt your sincerity, but does your idea of "settling it" include the full $2 trillion trust and the additional $75 trillion for the lands claim settlement of Ontario? Or how about the sharing of all the resources, including royalties and stakes in the companies? " and any government tries to pay that they will be overthrown. Public opinion will easily prevent anything from like that happening and laws changed.

Agree, and I think most Canadians agree with that. I think that might depend on the scope of their actions. If it starts to affect a majority of Canadian's I suspect public opinion will sway to having police keeping the natives inline, ideally by arresting them peacefully, if not force would of course be required. If police/gov don't do their job the majority of Canadian's will do what they need to defend their assets and future, see Arab spring as an example. If the government doesn't defend Canadians they will be overthrown.

Rule of law is decided by Canadians. Not a tiny minority. Majority won't let themselves be ruled by a small minority.

If they ever try we will raise up in arms and shoot them all dead. Period. Don't ever kid yourself about that -- they won't take the land/homes that folks spent their hole lives working for. My family lost sizable assets and land in the world wars in Europe. It's gone now as is anything like your outrageous claims. You might as well give up and get a job. The tax benefits are going away too it's just a matter of time. We should all be treated equally, there shouldn't be multiple classes of people. I don't feel bad for any of them. I think subsidizing their way of life has been the worst thing we could've done for them. No tax breaks, no grants, no special treatment.