Moonbox

I felt pretty much the same. I was at least willing to give it a chance. I KNEW that Harper's platform sucked. Trudeau's has potential. It remains to be seen if he'll be responsible with it or if he'll follow the typical Liberal Tax-and-Spend formula that his Dad and the Ontario Liberals have followed. I think/hope he's smart enough to know better. I can get behind infrastructure deficits. I'll never support social deficits and dead-on-arrival environmental plans like Ontario's Green Energy disaster.

Definitely. Like I said, his name and his looks have always been enough for him to bring an audience. He's like a rock star on university campuses and was even before he became party leader. The fact that he's such a good speaker definitely helps though. The brilliant thing about Trudeau and his campaign was that he offered the exact opposite of everything people hated about Harper. It was a populist, optimistic message coming from a great speaker that people found easy to like. That was in direct contrast to the dark warnings and pessimism they were getting from the dour, robotic Harper.

Not really. The Conservatives lost and the Liberals won. Your statement is by default irrational, but I suppose you're trying to say that the election was the Conservatives' to lose from the outset. Even on that note you'd be wrong. Harper only won the last couple of elections through the appalling weakness of his competition. The Liberal Party offered Dion and Ignatieff as opposition, and they couldn't have been less inspiring. Using your line of reasoning and given Harper's consistent unpopularity (especially among small c's/red tories), you can say Harper didn't really "win" either of those elections. He let his opponents lose. As soon as he had even somewhat credible opposition, he was toast. All Justin had to do this election was keep his mouth shut and not say anything stupid. The idea that this was Harper's election to lose couldn't be more out of touch. He'd lost before the campaign even started. People knew what to expect from him and most of them didn't like it. Nope. People enormously overestimate the strength of the NDP during and after the last election. Jack ran a decent campaign but his platform was BS and his "success" was an anomaly. The NDP was the default anti-Harper choice left after the implosion of the Liberals and the Bloc. Predictably, their strong 2011 numbers tanked as soon as there was a credible alternative. Jack would have flopped against Trudeau just as bad as Mulcair did.

It wouldn't have mattered. Trudeau built his support very quickly. He went from being 3rd to 1st almost instantly. As soon as the debates were done and people saw him speak without making a fool of himself, he was the front runner. The fact that he did a lot more than that gave him the majority.

I'm not sure how you can say that. Just because it was an anti-Harper election doesn't mean that it wasn't also Trudeau's moment to shine. It's incredibly, incredibly naive of you to think that Trudeau's pedigree was not a huge part of his success. It does cheapen the victory, but it doesn't make the victory cheap. The Trudeau name holds huge weight in Central and Atlantic Canada. That really can't be understated. Having said that, it would only take him so far. Harper's childish ad smearing had people extremely wary of Justin's credentials and they were ready to accept him as portrayed by the Conservatives... Then they heard him speak. His debate performance and his own ads made it abundantly clear that he wasn't an idiot and the election outcome was predetermined from there. You had a young, good-looking "Trudeau" who oozed charisma running against a widely disliked PM seeking his FOURTH term and a smart but grandfatherly guy with zero gravitas leading a party and platform that the overwhelming majority of Canada can't stomach. I made a lot of money Monday night.

The nature of that question sort of precludes any sort of real answer. You're asking him to provide evidence of all of the people who are "abusing" the self-employed taxation system and not getting caught. The fact that they're not getting caught means that there's not going to be any evidence to provide. Any sort of discussion around this, therefore, is going to be heavily anecdotal. Unless you're in a position to be regularly looking at self-employed tax returns, you're unlikely to know how silly it can get. CRA knows, but they have to make best use of available resources....resources that the government was planning to (or already has) cut. Perhaps, but a lot of the time the shareholders are the ones operating the business, making the claims and potentially doing a lot of the book keeping. Their interpretations of what's good for the company vs what's good for them personally is thus (I put this generously) very muddy. They also have to concern themselves with investigating the claims and enforcing the rules. As the current system stands, the CRA doesn't have the resources to do either. As I've said before, they have to direct their attention where it will be best spent. BS expense claims for small businesses aren't usually that high on the priority list. Unless you piss off your ex-wife and you're not a total idiot about it, you can get away with A LOT.

At least a lot of that was due to reduced taxes. It's another thing altogether to blow it on overpaying federal provincial public servants etc. Regardless, I think at this point we can all dispel the myth that Harper's somehow a strong manager of the economy. His priorities have been made clear with income-splitting and the TFSA contribution limit increases, both of which benefit the wealthy almost exclusively. The question now is are the other guys going to do any better? As soon as someone shows me that they ACTUALLY have the middle class in mind (and by that I don't mean our overpaid public sector), they'll have my vote. So far the closest thing to that I've seen is Trudeau, but the guy's an idiot. For me my vote hinges on whether or not I can believe Trudeau's team can muzzle him and that he'll listen to them. Maybe this is a question for another debate, but why isn't there a party that can get tough with: a ) Corporate swindling (ie. banks/telecoms/oil and their lobbyists) b )The bloated and overpaid public sector Why are we always choosing between the two? Why isn't there someone in the middle trying to show how we're getting screwed from both directions?

What are you basing that on? Is it nothing? Right. It was to screw over Iran. So what? Except they're not anywhere close to being viable alternatives. Yeah Germany and China are real success stories...with German converting from nuclear to coal and China's fossil fuel consumption skyrocketing.

The overwhelming majority of them couldn't. A single-income family bringing in $60,000/y would be putting nearly 35-40% of their net income towards just their mortgage payment and property tax. What's left is a pretty meager lifestyle. Neat (and useless) story. It's unfortunately rather light on numbers and facts, and once again fairly heavy on Argus testimonial. You know what would really help you? Why don't you run a mock budget for someone earning $60,000 a year and tell us how much disposable income they have. Maybe that would help pop that bubble you live in. Top earners being folks who earn $45-60,000 a year? This is the intellectual cover you were talking about I guess. It's too bad there's really nothing intellectual about it. It's just a slimy re-framing of the data to paint your argument in the best light possible. If these folks are "top earners", then what do we call people earning 440% more than them? Who cares? People earning +200k/year are wasting exponentially more. /yawn. How is it that you still think these sorts of anecdotes are even remotely worth typing? They're 100% useless (and unverifiable), nobody cares and they don't prove anything. I too could tell fascinating and self-praising stories about my work ethic and sensibilities, but I'm smart enough to remember that we're on an internet forum so I don't bother. They don't have a reasonable explanation. They have an explanation based on falsehoods and they do pretty much the exact opposite of what the Conservatives say they do. The Trudeau plan, while FAR from perfect, is still a lot more reasonable than that. It's just taxing the rich (who can much better afford it) in order to lower taxes for folks earning a fraction that they do. Explanations don't come much more simple or pragmatic than that. Whether or not it's a good plan isn't really the question for me. They're still better than Harper's tax policy, which is at best incompetent.

Whatever you say man. Again, you're not actually making an argument. You're just posturing on the internet and that's sad. That's the spin, yes. The thing is that having a stay-at-home parent is a luxury and privilege in itself - one that most Canadian families can't afford. It's therefore little more than a tax-break for the top income earners. Don't take my word for it though, maybe do a tiny bit of research on it first. See how the PBO, the media, economists and tax-policy think-tanks are all piling up against it for the dumb idea it is. So how does a $10,000 contribution limit help someone who's making $45-70,000 year? These, of course, are folks apparently in the "top third". Most of them, of course, can afford to put ~20-25% of their net income towards the TFSA, right? The hypocrisy of your position (ie. tax cuts for the top earners are good, tax cuts for the Trudeau demographic are bad) is pretty obvious. Nope. Obviously you haven't done much recent reading on the subject. It's still being panned as a bad idea because it still is a bad idea. Perhaps, but income-splitting is a terrible way of solving this. No I'm sorry but that's just your own personal spin. What you're calling "intellectual cover" is really just smoke-and-mirrors politicking.

Of course it limits them. It has to otherwise everyone would have fully non-taxable investment income. That limit, however, doesn't mean they're not fully taking advantage of it, and it's nowhere near as limiting as not being able to afford max contributions in the first place. The argument isn't against the TFSA. It's against $10,000 annual limits, which offers absolutely nothing to the overwhelming majority of Canadians. What the hell? I'm not maligning people for using it. It's a no-brainer. Try to keep track of the discussion.

No, you're just projecting, and hearing you call me a rabid ideologue is jokes. In any case, those terms are both subjective and relative, thus they mean very different things to very different people. All of this, however, ignores the simple fact that tax schemes use purely quantitative measurements instead of Argus-definitions. You might not like my tone (I couldn't care less), but I'm not the one anonymously belittling the personal finances of people I know nothing about on the internet. If you're not concerned with intellectual credibility and if you have a demented idea of what constitutes fairness, then sure. Sure, but $10,000 contribution limits aren't encouraging anyone to save except for the very top of the income scale (ie. the people who have done well enough for themselves to have already ensured a comfortable retirement). Most of the money going into TFSA's right now aren't even new investments. It's just cash being swapped out from unregistered accounts and money old people are sitting on. Not the same extent? You'll have to explain that interesting logic. I can't take a word of that seriously. The Tories perfected the art of divide and conquer vote buying. The income-splitting is one of the most blatantly unfair and ill-conceived tax policies we've ever seen in Canada. Even the C.D. Howe Institute panned it as bad idea, yet here you are flogging it like the bee's knees. Rather than trying to tell me how I feel about things, why don't you actually make a coherent case for it, one that isn't complete and out-of-touch BS about how unfair the privilege of a stay-at-home parent is? That's the nature of politics, genius. Of course you're never complaining about vote-buying when it's the Tories doing it.

Sorry, but millionaires are millionaires and billionaires are billionaires. They're both wealthy and rich, regardless of whatever arbitrary meaning you decide to assign to the terms for the sake of this debate. I think it's pretty obvious you're just getting frustrated and making veiled insults. Those of us who grew up with the internet know how pointless it is to brag and condescend anonymously based on completely unverifiable personal accomplishments or lack thereof. I wouldn't expect you to be happy about it, but if you understand how a laddered tax system works then there's really not much else to say about it. It's merely being tweaked and the logic behind the tweak is the same as the logic used to set up the laddered system in the first place. TFSA contribution limit increases and income-splitting are also pretty blatant vote-buying policies, so the above argument is a little hypocritical. One of "those people"? Why it's "proper"? You need to take a deep breath and check your emotions. All your comments about jealousy and resentment are coming off kind of petulant. You'd be a lot better off arguing the social and economic impact of the proposed changes rather than how it makes you feel. These are the sorts of things such decisions are based on.

I'd measure wealth quantitatively. Trying to spin that as jealousy is pretty funny, but then you bring that line up fairly frequently. You have no idea how well-off I am financially, so those comments are little more than chest-thumping and empty internet-bluster. We have words terms like "billionaire", "super-rich", ultra-high net-worth individuals etc to talk about Bill Gates. Calling him 'wealthy' is a gross understatement and nobody would ever compare the two of you. Limos and servants aren't really useful measurements of well-being either. That probably why economists etc don't use them in their reports and studies. If a billionaire lives in a modest home and drives an Odyssey to work, he's still a billionaire and he's still wealthy/rich. Well that's the problem with your comment. You weren't using logic. You were just giving us empty rhetoric. I'd say instead that the arguments against the Trudeau plan are based on self-important nonsense from people that argue income-splitting and $10,000 TFSA limits (effective tax cuts for wealthier Canadians) are way better ideas than ones that benefit people who both earn and have significantly less. I'm taking your money? That's news to me! As for the logic, do you really need someone to explain the merits and arguments of a laddered tax system?

A large proportion of which are stay-at-home moms with 6-figure spouses and well-off retirees with excess income. These are the priorities of the Harper Conservatives. because the demographics of people who can afford $10,000/y is very different from those that can afford $5,500. Do you disagree? Of course you do... Sorry I misread. Maybe extend your logic from here then. What are you suggesting? That these people need a tax-cut too? The Post gave you a figure of ~260,000 people with <$20,000 annual incomes max out their TFSAs. What does that actually mean? That people living off of <$20,000/y can also afford to contribute more than +30% of their net income? The Post is really hoping people don't use their brain when they read that. and you're not willing to use your brain and consider it. Unfortunately for my position, the data simply isn't available. CRA isn't doing in-depth demographic studies into who is making TFSA contributions. They're providing bare-bones numbers. Once again, however, I'll invite you to explain how people with less than 20k in income are maxing out their TFSA contributions. a lame and out-of-context jab. Are you arguing that numbers aren't a better measurement of wealth than Chris Rock wisdom? Do you really need citations for that? As usual, you're a lot less clever than you think.

Right, so why aren't they saving for retirement? (Hint: It's difficult to do so when you're making $60,000/year or less). Their $5500 limit TFSAs. The calculus changes quite a bit when you almost double it. You'll have to explain that one. The outcome which I predicted before Trudeau was even elected Liberal leader. He'll likely win regardless, but schemes like this will make it easier. I'm suggesting it's spinning the CRA data to paint a picture far from the truth. I gave you an example how. The Post is a joke. Well I don't keep track of it on spread sheets, but if you cared to use a little common sense then consider this: How many stay-at-home moms are there in Canada with spouses earning $100,000+? Knowing this, and knowing that the TFSA is a no-brainer for people with disposable income, how many of them do you think are maxing out their TFSA's? If you cared to consider the CRA data beyond how Post is trying to spin it, we can see where the numbers are coming from. You don't have believe what I say I see in my profession. Just try to run the numbers with context and without the National Post's habitual spin.

Relative to the people who never have to worry about paying bills but who endlessly complain about how unfair everything is.

It's a relative term. It doesn't really matter either way and the rest of what you're saying here is just a red herring.

I don't know, do you? Are you trying to suggest that all of the folks who don't have TFSA's are total deadbeats? If so, could provide some background figures to support that? Middle income Canadians don't have $10,000 to contribute. The elderly are already mostly voting Conservative. Not much for Trudeau to lose there but potentially a lot to gain. That's $500-600 they could put towards their debt or the TFSA they're not currently utilizing. At today's interest rates, it would take over 10 years of maxed TFSA contributions for the interest to offset the tax refund on someone at that level of income. All of this, of course, ignores even with this decent wage most wouldn't be able afford $10/year. As for income splitting, I imagine all of the duo-income families voting Liberal will more than cover the relatively few income-splitters who might take offense. Case in point for how much of a hack-job that Post article was: "The CRA stats show 267,000 Canadians who make less than $20,000 had contributed the maximum and 1.1 million Canadians making less than $60,000 were also contributing the maximum to their TFSA." From direct experience (I'm a financial planner), I can tell you that the vast majority of these people are stay-at-home spouses and/or have husbands/wives that make great money. It's not people struggling to get by as the National Joke or the Conservatives would have you believe.

So your TFSA, at best, covers you for inflation (but probably hasn't since 2010). If you're getting more out of 1-2% interest than you would from Trudeau's tax cuts, that's because you're in a higher tax bracket and congratulations to you. Small problem: Someone making $88,000/year only has ~$66,000 in net income. A $10,000 contribution limit is therefore more than 15% of their take-home and I can tell you for a fact that virtually nobody is putting that sort of money away each year.

My concept is based on relative numbers and facts. Yours is based on: "...NBA players are rich, but the billionaire owner who tosses them their pennies is wealthy. Oprah is rich. Bill Gates is wealthy.." Which is more absurd? No offense intended, but what you personally consider rich or wealthy is entirely irrelevant. No doubt, but your logic suggests a whole bunch of things that simply aren't true. Among them are: 1) That taxing an extra 4% of their income annually somehow makes those MBA/LLB/CPA/Md's not worth it now (as if they wouldn't have pursued them otherwise) 2) That everyone in the top 5-10 percentiles "earned" it 3) That people in the middle and lower income classes all have the same opportunity

You've done enough humble-bragging about your tax bracket etc over the years that you'll have to excuse us if we might have believed you. Let's get real for a second Argus. Even you know that's a hack article. "Of the over 28 million Canadians over 18 according to StatCan, 7% of Canadians eligible for TFSAs have maxed out their room." So at a $5500 limit, only 7% of Canadians were using it. As the limit increases to $10,000, that percentage will drop dramatically.

I wouldn't normally. I still hold that Trudeau Senior is the worst Prime Minister we've ever had (by a long shot), but Harper's done absolutely nothing to impress me over the last 4 years. What I used to think was just solid pragmatism is turning out to be total sheisterism. There's no arguing at this point that his policies aren't aiming to benefit the well-off first and everyone else second, and he drives this agenda home with sleazy political ads that appeal to the unintelligent. The interest earned in TFSA's right now is next to nothing. Old folk's aren't using their TFSA's for income either. They all had RSP's and RIF's set up long before the TFSA program started. Only the well-off elderly have 10k/year to put into TFSA's, and all they're using it for is to invest in stocks and mutal/segregated funds tax-free.

The funny thing about this is that people are decrying the Liberal tax plan as unfair, but then the TFSA contribution limit increase is just perfectly reasonable... As Harper would have it, people who can contribute $10,000/year to their TFSA's are middle-class families...Except middle-class incomes are ~$53,000/year...and these families cannot afford to put 20% of their pre-tax income to their TFSA's...so.... So who benefits from this exactly? The wealthy. It's a tax-cut for the wealthy and woe to anyone who tries to give the average guy a break. The word-mongering and optics going on here is pretty delusional.

As your article states, the "middle-class" is subject to varying definitions. Either way, you have a point, but then we also have to consider: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/middle-class-income-stagnation-made-in-canada/article12858848/ and http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/canadas-wage-gap-at-record-high-oecd/article4099041/ to get a little perspective on how awfully things have been going for Canada's wealthy and why the rest of Canadians might not be sympathetic.