Moonbox

What the heck are you even talking about? I'm saying the percentage of people that can afford to invest $10,000 annually for 25 years are the people with >100,000 incomes. How many of those people do you know who end up with nothing for income when they retire, thus qualifying for a supplement? Give me that percentage. The OAS website is saying that the max income for the GIS is $16,000. What do you think the percentage is of retired folk who have been putting $10,000 in their TFSA each year and only $16000 in retirement income? Pretty freaking low. Most young people are still putting money into the RSP instead of the TFSA for the tax deduction. Seniors by far prefer the TFSA and they're the ones that have bought in the most to it. Kind of like RRSP's right? Okay we'll wait and see over the next 10-15 years and see: 1) How many wealthy people (the only ones who could save the $10,000 per year) end up with <$16000 in retirement income/year . 2) How long both future Conservative and Liberal governments will allow what will obviously be a fairly significant tax loophole if left unchecked. I'll agree with you in the sense that if left like this forever, the $10,000 limit will get out of hand. If you or I can see that, I'm sure present and future governments will too, and it will be a very easy thing to to change. What I won't agree with, in any sense, is that we're going to see a huge abuse of the GIS. The idea of wealthy people with nothing for income when they retire other doesn't really add up.

Probably the same percentage of people who could afford $10,000 a year to contribute to their TFSA. People with usually a fair bit more than $100,000 salaries. How many people do you know are able to invest 15-20% of their after tax income??? It's no less reasonable than your balogna scenario where lower income seniors, who've been able to put away $10,000 per year for the last 25 years, somehow find themselves in a position where their income is so low they then qualify for supplements from the government. That doesn't make a lot of sense. We can definetly evaluate the platform on the premise of what might/should/almost certainly will happen in the future simply by looking at the promise for what it is. This is a Tory pander to seniors. The Tories know that the percentage of seniors who vote is high, they know seniors are the main users of the TFSA and they know that most seniors won't have 25 years to accumulate balances in them. They also know, like any reasonable human being should, that they won't be in power for the next 25 years, or likely even 10-15 years for that matter, and that if it's such a terrible idea then subsequent governments will stop it before it gets to be a problem. Fair enough I ran it with no initial contribution. That was me just being nitpicky and contrary. A fault of mine. Again, it boils down to your assumption that the people who can afford to invest $10,000 annually (the wealthy) all of the sudden become poor as soon as they retire.

Not to burst your bubble but there's no trend yet really. The Nanos polls that are really showing the change have a margin of error of 6% and we've seen 4% shifts per day up and down in both directions. Ignatieff had better do better in Ontario than Dion did, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Liberals match Tory support in Ontario. It's the rest of Canada that they have to worry about.

I think this is about as substantial as a fart in the wind so far. We'll have to wait and see... Unless Harper and the CPC implode then Michael Ignatieff is going to get lynched after this election. Stephen Harper has been the most polarizing PM since Trudeau and even a lot of his base don't really like him, disregarding the swing vote. His only saving grace is that the best the Liberals could come up with to oppose him were Dion and Ignatieff, under whom the party has merely survived at historically low levels of support and likely by brand name alone. Unless he can pull off some magic in the next three weeks, he's a total dud and he's certain to be ousted.

It's an interesting premise, but there are so many things wrong with it. First, the people who can throw $10,000 a year into their TFSA are likely those whose income is high enough to basically disqualify them for any significant supplements even with the TFSA income. Second, you're assuming that the TFSA will remain an option at the $10,000/year contribution limit for the next 25 years with no lifetime contribution limit, which is incredibly unlikely. The government, whether it be Liberal or Conservative in the future, would by all reason put limits to it. Lastly, your calculations are exaggerated. The annuity @ a 5% interest rate (an exaggerated rate but I'll give it to you) leads you to around $475,000 and you're ignoring the impact inflation has on it. Assuming a 5% interest rate, you'd have to equally assume a ~3.5% inflation rate. Effectively those greedy bastards will maybe earn 1.5% on their investments and you can bet that 25 years from now that $25,000 in income is going to be worth maybe half that effectively. Where the TFSA could potentially be a huge windfall for intelligent or wealthy investors I think is in equity and capital gains. Change that 5% a year in interest to an average of 8-10% capital gain on average and that's a pretty big deal. Once again, however, it's an impossibility that this would continue ad infinitum.

My experience is the vast majority of people don't even understand what the TFSA is. Yes, it's likely that most people don't have $10,000 per year to invest, but it's not like the RSP and the people who do have $10,000 aren't getting tax deductions on their contributions. They're getting an account where they can invest in small portfolios of investments and have the gains/income from it not taxed. I'm not exactly sure why it's a bad idea for the government to encourage people to save money and invest for retirement (which Canadians are notoriously bad at). If they don't they're going to end up costing the government just as much in support and pensions anyways. My generation is not going to be able to pay for the baby boomer pensions the way they stand now.

I assume you're basing your statement on your vast first hand experience of these groups right? I could make a similar blanket statement and say that an Islamic group, or an aboriginal group, is equally racist.

Chretien and Martin followed Trudeau, who was the worst economic manager the country has ever had by a long shot. We're still paying off his debt.

I'd like an answer to this too. Harper took so much criticism in his earlier days as PM and opposition leader for being pro-American from Liberal supporters but they can conveniently ignore Ignatieff's "my country" comments etc...

LoL yes I know I don't think executive bonuses really provide any sort of impetus for stock market prices. The bonuses are rewards for bumping up the share price perhaps, but P/E ratios, dividends and speculation are what really drive them. I guarantee you that big investors aren't looking at executive bonuses when trying to determine whether a stock is a good purchase. The only defence I can think of for it is that short term or immediate bonuses attract big name executive talent, which shareholders want. My question for them, however, is whether they should be looking for big name CEO's concerned only with the short term and short term bonuses, or smaller names (though likely just as intelligent) CEO's with the company's long term interest in mind.

Perhaps that's the case but you'd have to look at the group itself and what it represents before you make that judgement. Usually White Supremacist groups are LOUD AND PROUD about how stupid and bigoted they are. There's a HUGE distinction between a white supremacist and a white person feeling disenfranchised by affirmative action in the modern western world. I support and encourage the second sort of person to band together and give their complaints voice, while at the same time holding the first group in absolute contempt for the ignorance that they preach.

I don't see what the difference is between that and something like B'nai Brith or the Muslim Congress of Canada, or even Women's Rights groups. Is it impossible that the rights of white people are sometimes overlooked simply because they're a majority? Please explain that to me.

I agree with you bloodyminded. There is a difference and the real tragedy of this is that the architects of the whole fiasco made out like bandits with little no consequences. The way executives are compensated makes it so that all they're concerned with is present and short term profit. They were getting rewarded on the volume of mortgages they could sell and thus it benefited them to qualify as many people as possible. There was really nothing illegal about this, although I'm sure a lot of them knew it wasn't a great idea long term. In my mind, CEO's and executives need to be awarded on the LONG TERM performance of their business unit. They should have to make sure that their present strategies continue to benefit the company in the long run and their bonuses should be paid out over time or in deferred stock options. Shareholders NEED to make sure their executives have the long term health of a company in their best interest otherwise things like this will continue to happen. Any educated manager/business owner knows that employees will do what they're getting measured and paid for. If a CEO is measured on short term profit, that's what he'll be gunning for and damn the consequences. It's like that for any job from CEO down to general laborer. If you want to prevent systemic greed and recklessness, you have to have systems in place to prevent it. Regulation of mortgage underwriting, such as in Canada, ensures that people can't buy houses they can't show they can afford. Intelligently designed performance incentives for CEO's and employees will ensure that they're doing what's right for the company, rather than what will make the numbers look good today. After all of that though bloodyminded, it seems we're pretty much in complete agreement lol.

I'm not sure you can really call him a white supremasict from those comments. He's perhaps racist against natives, but that's all it looks like. I myself think it's ludicrous how much money we throw away at aboriginals and how much of it they squander, though I wouldn't go so far as to say they can't hold a job...That's just dumb.

That's exactly what Trudeau did coincidentally.

53 Canucks were sold to Belgium. Oh boy! As for SAAB, the company is floundering and there's been a lot of talk about selling the company off altogether. It's barely solvent as it stands. That's not exactly the success story you're making it out to be.

The Gripen is a 13 year old plane that has been purchased for export by almost nobody. A small handful of craft have been purchased and it was mostly because it was the cheapest thing on the block.

Yes I meant 30 million people lol. At any rate, Israel's defense industry is heavily subsidized by the US like Smallc said.

As I've stated before, other countries were not actually excited about the plane by the time it was cancelled. There WAS interest in the early stages and the British were actually going to buy the finished product. Unfortunately the project took too long, the other countries you mentioned came up with their own similar/superior projects that would be coming online around the same time and that's the interest in the Avro fizzled out. So your most likely scenario is that the government trashed the equipment and designs purely out of spite and contempt? It's more likely that the project turned out to be a massive embarrassment and the government wanted to cover up how much taxpayer money they wasted on a dud plane. Name us another country of $30 million with a thriving defence industry. Hint: There aren't any.

I'm going to guess you have no citation for that....

Yes sorry. That's kind of what I'm trying to say I can't disagree with that.

What's your point?

The price hasn't even been set yet. Wait until you see what it's being sold for before you start wetting your pants over it Oleg.

Yes. He wanted to allow foreign banks in to increase competition. That's not a bad thing. He also allowed for 40 year mortgages, which really didn't do anything but inflate the real estate market (Canada's default rates were minimal) and he's since reversed this all the way down to 30 years max. and Harper maintained the surplus until the recession. What a stupid remark. As if Paul Martin could have avoided a deficit...... It all boils down to taxes. If we have less of a surplus because of lower taxes, I'm not worried. If we have less of a surplus because he's blowing his load like Trudeau on social programs, then I have a problem. A good think. I like lower taxes. Explain why our manufacturing base has been shrinking for the last decade, despite our lower tax rate. They need any advantage they can get. At any rate, I'm all for lower federal taxes. So much of the money collected just ends up getting sent to Quebec anyways so they can smoke and complain on welfare. Enough said. True, and something I'm not happy about, but remembering Dion's election promises, as well as Ignatieff's claims that Harper wasn't spending enough to stimulate the economy, the critism is irrelevant in comparison. He didn't know. It didnd't hurt anyone either. No, it had already collapsed. That's why he said it. It WAS a great time to participate in the stock market. I made 60% on my portfolio that year. Buy low and sell high. LoLoL now you're really reaching. This criticism is nothing but hack partisan garbage. You're double-dipping here, just like Ignatieff. You can't criticize Harper's deficits AND criticize him for not including large amounts of stimulus in his original budget. If what you're saying is true, then the deficit is the opposition's fault.

aaaand what about Chretien?