Budget Day 2008!

[White Doors]

I'm surprised no one has made a thread on this yet.

Love budget days!

Discuss!

[jdobbin]

I expect they will they take the Liberal idea of investing in infrastructure and run with it. The raw anger in many provinces and cities regarding the condition of roads, highways and bridges is reaching critical mass. The money won't be much but it will be a reason for the Liberals not to vote against the budget if it is in there.

I doubt we are going to get much tax reduction. There will likely be long term numbers for years away but nothing much in this year.

The Tories aren't likely to put any poison pills in the budget not do they have enough in terms of numbers to go the public with amazing tax reductions or spending in an election. Harper has stopped goading Dion to bring him down at the first opportunity. I think they were both scared what would happen on the Afghanistan issue. The polls show no traction for any party in terms of getting a majority.

This budget will be a housekeeping budget. The last large surpluses are probably going to be seen in this budget if the IMF is right about Canada having much slower growth in 2008.

[August1991]

I expect they will they take the Liberal idea of investing in infrastructure and run with it. The raw anger in many provinces and cities regarding the condition of roads, highways and bridges is reaching critical mass. The money won't be much but it will be a reason for the Liberals not to vote against the budget if it is in there.

Liberal idea? Since when did building roads become a Liberal idea?

And given that the Liberals were in power to 2006, why is our infrastructure in such a bad state? This reminds me of our Kyoto targets which the Liberals also harp - yet in the famous words of a Liberal, "You didn't get it done."

Chretien was big on splashy announcements and illusion but nothing ever got done.

Anyway, governments are supposed to maintain roads and build bridges that don't fall down. Governments are not supposed to set up long gun registries, pay for advertising campaigns to convince us of government or hand out all manner of subsidies to friends to build hotels and golf courses.

Now then, most infrastructure in Canada is under provincial jurisdiction. I don't think the federal government should get involved.

I doubt we are going to get much tax reduction. There will likely be long term numbers for years away but nothing much in this year.

The Tories aren't likely to put any poison pills in the budget not do they have enough in terms of numbers to go the public with amazing tax reductions or spending in an election. Harper has stopped goading Dion to bring him down at the first opportunity. I think they were both scared what would happen on the Afghanistan issue. The polls show no traction for any party in terms of getting a majority.

This budget will be a housekeeping budget. The last large surpluses are probably going to be seen in this budget if the IMF is right about Canada having much slower growth in 2008.

I have heard projections of a $14 billion surplus for this fiscal year alone. EI has an accumulated surplus of $54 billion. The CPPIB has an accumulated surplus of about $110 billion.

Ottawa is rolling in dough and the last thing politicians or bureaucrats should have is easy access to other people's money. I would love to see some tax cuts but more important, I want to see spending cuts. I pray most of all that Flaherty doesn't get in to the game of picking winners.

There is an endless line of people who want someone else's money for a pet cause. Bureaucrats and politicians can't pick winners and shouldn't try.

A big chunk of the Canadian population says the ruling Conservatives should cut taxes to stimulate spending if the economy sours, according to a new national poll that also says a slim majority of Canadians would even accept the government chalking up a budget deficit under those circumstances.

CanWest

Vox populi.

Edited February 26, 2008 by August1991

[jdobbin]

Liberal idea? Since when did building roads become a Liberal idea?

Since the gas tax promise made by Martin. And confirmed again by Dion in his recent speech to the municipalities.

And given that the Liberals were in power to 2006, why is our infrastructure in such a bad state? This reminds me of our Kyoto targets which the Liberals also harp - yet in the famous words of a Liberal, "You didn't get it done."

I agree it took too long. Ask the municipalities how they feel about Martin's budget that gave them more money for infrastructure. They like it. And it is needed as well as good for the economy. You don't remember the gas tax committment in the budget?

Chretien was big on splashy announcements and illusion but nothing ever got done.

Anyway, governments are supposed to maintain roads and build bridges that don't fall down. Governments are not supposed to set up long gun registries, pay for advertising campaigns to convince us of government or hand out all manner of subsidies to friends to build hotels and golf courses.

Now you are going off on a tangent.

Now then, most infrastructure in Canada is under provincial jurisdiction. I don't think the federal government should get involved.

Neither the provinces or the municipalities have the money for such huge work and the Feds collect a large gas tax. Time to put it into roads, bridges, sewers and water treatment plants.

I have heard projections of a $14 billion surplus for this fiscal year alone. EI has an accumulated surplus of $54 billion. The CPPIB has an accumulated surplus of about $110 billion.

Ottawa is rolling in dough and the last thing politicians or bureaucrats should have is easy access to other people's money. I would love to see some tax cuts but more important, I want to see spending cuts. I pray most of all that Flaherty doesn't get in to the game of picking winners.

There is an endless line of people who want someone else's money for a pet cause. Bureaucrats and politicians can't pick winners and shouldn't try.

I agree on more tax cuts. More personal and income tax cuts should happen. Western Diversification and Atlantic Opportunities as well as other regional initiatives should be cut in favour of a national infrastructure program.

Edited February 26, 2008 by jdobbin

[White Doors]

I would think that strong infrastructure spending would be a win-win-win.

it is a core government responsibility and it makes sense.

Let's explore and get serious about high speed rail for the Que - ONT corridor.

Not just for passenger but freight as well. Can help with out competitiveness. Can be sold to help the environment and helps Canadians get t know each other better.

I like it.

I also think that a single national regulator is in the nations interest. I also think that carrots and sticks should be dangled and brandished to encourage interprovincial trade.

other than this, I'd like increasing, steady reductions and simplifications to the income tax act.

love watching on budget day!

going home early to 'work from home'

[Topaz]

Liberal idea? Since when did building roads become a Liberal idea?

And given that the Liberals were in power to 2006, why is our infrastructure in such a bad state? This reminds me of our Kyoto targets which the Liberals also harp - yet in the famous words of a Liberal, "You didn't get it done."

Chretien was big on splashy announcements and illusion but nothing ever got done.

Anyway, governments are supposed to maintain roads and build bridges that don't fall down. Governments are not supposed to set up long gun registries, pay for advertising campaigns to convince us of government or hand out all manner of subsidies to friends to build hotels and golf courses.

Now then, most infrastructure in Canada is under provincial jurisdiction. I don't think the federal government should get involved.

I have heard projections of a $14 billion surplus for this fiscal year alone. EI has an accumulated surplus of $54 billion. The CPPIB has an accumulated surplus of about $110 billion.

Ottawa is rolling in dough and the last thing politicians or bureaucrats should have is easy access to other people's money. I would love to see some tax cuts but more important, I want to see spending cuts. I pray most of all that Flaherty doesn't get in to the game of picking winners.

There is an endless line of people who want someone else's money for a pet cause. Bureaucrats and politicians can't pick winners and shouldn't try.

CanWest

Vox populi.

You don`t think the Conservsative have given out subsidies? They just gave 50 million to pig farmers, gave more money to farmer`s which the news last night said that farmer`s are recording a 40 billion profit.How about paying someone 122,000 to write a speech for a minister? Yet they don`t care or are very slow to help out the lumber and the manufacturing sector. I do believe witht eh elction coming they wil put some money in for the man.and lumber.

[M.Dancer]

I would think that strong infrastructure spending would be a win-win-win.

it is a core government responsibility and it makes sense.

Let's explore and get serious about high speed rail for the Que - ONT corridor.

Not just for passenger but freight as well. Can help with out competitiveness. Can be sold to help the environment and helps Canadians get t know each other better.

I like it.

I also think that a single national regulator is in the nations interest. I also think that carrots and sticks should be dangled and brandished to encourage interprovincial trade.

other than this, I'd like increasing, steady reductions and simplifications to the income tax act.

love watching on budget day!

going home early to 'work from home'

I'm not sure if there's a pressing need for rail freight to arrive an hour or two early, and if there were, CN could raise the money themselves. As to high speed passenger service, it wold be nice but not too likely as CN owns the lines so new lines would have to be expropiated which of course would send the cost through the roof.

[Pat Coghlan]

I'd like to see US-style taxation of family (vs individual) income, but we may have to wait a bit longer for it.

[JerrySeinfeld]

How about giving our hard earned money back to us.

[White Doors]

I'm not sure if there's a pressing need for rail freight to arrive an hour or two early, and if there were, CN could raise the money themselves. As to high speed passenger service, it wold be nice but not too likely as CN owns the lines so new lines would have to be expropiated which of course would send the cost through the roof.

you sure CN owns the lines? Thought they had a lease agreement with the govt?

i speed frieght will encourage less trucks on the road, facilitate just in time inventory etc etc..

[Topaz]

Over on CBC webpage they have two charts, one shows how many money the government brings in and another chart were the money goes. I just happen to add up the two and came up with 10.3% that would be a surplus. The largest revenue is income tax at 112.5% of there revenues. BTW, total revenues for 2007-8 are 244.5 Billion.

[August1991]

How about giving our hard earned money back to us.

By paying down the debt, the government in effect is cutting our (future) taxes. I frankly think however that there is no reason to reduce the debt. Most important though, it doesn't appear as if there are any major spending plans. (Thank God!) I would have preferred spending cuts but I guess, for political reasons, Harper isn't prepared for that now.

----

What is this crazy $5000 Tax Free Savings Account thingee? Why do the Tories always complicate the tax system with nickel and dime nonsense? There used to be a $1000 deduction for interest income that achieved the same goal as this scheme. It would have been better if the Tories had raised the RRSP limits - this too would have achieved the same.

The income tax split for pensioners is weird. Will we start see marriages of convenience in senior citizen homes?

Edited February 27, 2008 by August1991

[jdobbin]

What is this crazy $5000 Tax Free Savings Account thingee? Why do the Tories always complicate the tax system with nickel and dime nonsense? There used to be a $1000 deduction for interest income that achieved the same goal as this scheme. It would have been better if the Tories had raised the RRSP limits - this too would have achieved the same.

The income tax split for pensioners is weird. Will we start see marriages of convenience in senior citizen homes?

The tax free savings account seems pretty complicated. I don't know if I understand it. It seems accountants love it though. Must be because they know we'll need them to prepare our taxes.

[Pat Coghlan]

The tax free savings account seems pretty complicated. I don't know if I understand it. It seems accountants love it though. Must be because they know we'll need them to prepare our taxes.

Why? Just add TFSPs (tax-free savings plans) to existing RRSPs and RESPs.

Put money in. Buy stocks etc. Take money out tax-free. B-r-o-k-e-r-a-g-e-s will probably love them. More accounts to manage - and charge fees for.

I suspect this will not be beneficial for the average Joe starting a job and saving for retirement as we already have RRSPs. OTOH, it's a way for wealthy couples to put $10K to work earning tax-free returns each and every year. Wealthy grandparents should set up accounts in each spouse's name for each grandchild and contribute $5K into each account every year. Then, will the accounts to the grandchildren. No attribution rules. A lone grandchild whose grandparents do this for 10-15 years can have $200K-$300K passed on to him/her tax-free. Just imagine if the account can retain it's tax-free status if willed to a dependent. The grandchild can have a million dollars working for him/her tax-free by age 30.

We have 3 sets of grandparents in our family (one couple split, remarried) who will all start taking full advantage of this vehicle immediately.

In the short-term, well at least I have some credits for public transit passes and my kids' soccer activities.

[jdobbin]

Why? Just add TFSPs (tax-free savings plans) to existing RRSPs and RESPs.

The difference here is that money goes in and out constantly tax-free. Not exactly the least complicated formula.

Put money in. Buy stocks etc. Take money out tax-free. B-r-o-k-e-r-a-g-e-s will probably love them. More accounts to manage - and charge fees for.

I suspect this will not be beneficial for the average Joe starting a job and saving for retirement as we already have RRSPs. OTOH, it's a way for wealthy couples to put $10K to work earning tax-free returns each and every year. Wealthy grandparents should set up accounts in each spouse's name for each grandchild and contribute $5K into each account every year. Then, will the accounts to the grandchildren. No attribution rules. A lone grandchild whose grandparents do this for 10-15 years can have $200K-$300K passed on to him/her tax-free. Just imagine if the account can retain it's tax-free status if willed to a dependent. The grandchild can have a million dollars working for him/her tax-free by age 30.

We have 3 sets of grandparents in our family (one couple split, remarried) who will all start taking full advantage of this vehicle immediately.

In the short-term, well at least I have some credits for public transit passes and my kids' soccer activities.

Tax credits are overly complicating the tax system. Just give us a lower income tax overall.

The government rebate program on cars was cancelled because it was a failure.

Edited February 27, 2008 by jdobbin

[White Doors]

An underwhelming budget to be sure.

I like the inititatives but I do wish they would go to trying to simplify the tax code a wee bit. Seems every year it gets more and more comolicated with more and more loopholes.

I still like Andrew Coyne's postcard tax filing idea.

[scribblet]

A compromise budget, nothing spectacular but something necessary when we have a minority gov't. I too wish they would de-complicate the tax system.

[August1991]

Why? Just add TFSPs (tax-free savings plans) to existing RRSPs and RESPs.

Put money in. Buy stocks etc. Take money out tax-free. B-r-o-k-e-r-a-g-e-s will probably love them. More accounts to manage - and charge fees for.

TFSAs are similar but not identical to RRSPs.

The TSFA (tax free savings account) allows a $5000 annual after-tax contribution. Interest accumulated is not taxed and so any withdrawals are tax free. (You can consider them front-loaded because you pay the tax upfront.)

With an RRSP, the contribution is tax free, interest accumulated is tax free but then you pay tax when it is withdrawn. (You can consider them to be back-loaded.)

All of this could also be accomplished by making interest revenue tax-free which used to be the case (up to a maximum of $1000 annually).

There are three advantages of the TSFA: one, families get $5000/adult. You can save in your spouse's name. Two, by front-loading the tax, it makes it much easier to withdraw. So if someone needs cash during the year, you can access the money immediately (without facing a withholding tax as with an RRSP). Third, withdrawals from the TFSA do not affect the calculations for pension supplements such as GAINS.

These advantages are due to administrative differences and not any basic principle.

All things considered, I think the TSFAs are a good idea and are useful for low-income people who want to save but find it difficult. They achieve exactly the same as an RRSP but they are less cumbersome. Because they are limited to $5000/annually, they will have no affect on rich people. This will be a vote-getter precisely for the kind of voters the Tories need. Moreover, I can see TFSAs (with larger contribution limits) overtaking RRSPs and replacing them. TSFAs are the European saving method of choice. They amount to an offshore account.

Unfortunately, the TSFAs won't kick in until 2009.

-----

Despite passing the $200-billion spending milestone for the first time, expenditure on programs in the coming fiscal year, 2008/09, will rise a relatively modest 3.43%. This is in line with Mr. Flaherty's commitment that the rate of growth would be below the rate of growth of the economy (nominal growth is pencilled in at 3.5% for the coming year). This follows years in which spending rose 7.5% and 6.85% respectively. Applause for Mr. Flaherty's focus and discipline should be suspended for now -- spending in the past two years overshot the budget forecast by an average of 1.6%.

John Ivison

Projected nominal GDP growth is 3.5% and federal programe spending growth is 3.43%. Coincidence? I think not.

It's unfortunate that a "conservative" means the federal government still grows as quickly as the pie. What does it take to make the federal government smaller?

Edited February 27, 2008 by August1991

[M.Dancer]

I think I can speak for Jack Layton when I say this budget does nothing for transgendered and GLB workers.....

[jdobbin]

Projected nominal GDP growth is 3.5% and federal programe spending growth is 3.43%. Coincidence? I think not.

It's unfortunate that a "conservative" means the federal government still grows as quickly as the pie. What does it take to make the federal government smaller?

The promise to keep spending down has been broken in every budget year since Martin's budgets. The Tories have actually outdone the Liberals and I don't see any change in that. In fact, as soon as the election is called, I expect the Tories will open up the taps.

I still think this $5000 savings account is overly complicating the tax system. Just cut income taxes please.

[Pat Coghlan]

Because they are limited to $5000/annually, they will have no affect on rich people.

I disagree.

The $5,000 limit is per *adult*. It's $10,000 for a couple. How many dentists/doctors with adult children who are in school etc. won't immediately be putting $5,000 into an account for each child?

There used to be a $100K tax-free capital gains exemption. Who do you think benefited from this before it was cancelled?

[M.Dancer]

There used to be a $100K tax-free capital gains exemption. Who do you think benefited from this before it was cancelled?

Everyone who had less than $100,000 in capital gains....doesn't sound alot until you decide to sell your cottage or cash in the Bell stock your grandma willed to you (which already were subject to a prohibitive and unconstitutional probate fee...)

For some like my family, who have less than 10,000 in ready cash savings for emergencies and sundries it means a small tax savings which is far better than a poke in the eye but not nearly as good as it could be. Personally I think all savings interest should be tax free.

[Caldezar]

The tax-free savings is a farce to say the least. It's a tidbit that's been tossed to the public as a way to placate us. Personally, I really don't mind our tax system; it's part of what separates us from the Americans. We pay more in taxes, but we expect more in return. I'd rather walk in to a hospital and know that I'll receive the attention I need, than save a few bucks here and there.

My largest concern over the budget this year is the squeeze on what was initially promised to our defense budget in '06. The conservatives seem awfully keen to throw our troops around like a bargaining tool to the UN, but they're not very willing to follow through on budgeting those commitments. We have an ever growing border in Canada that an ever aging fleet can't defend. We have UN commitments we can hardly keep up to in the Navy. We send under geared troops to a war-torn country and then ignore them at budget time because we 'don't want to spark an election over Afghanistan.' Guess what? As leaders of our country, it's your duty and responsibility to fight the fights that need fighting; not to glaze over portions of a budget that might make a wave or two. I'd like to stick Harper and his crew in a fox hole in Afghanistan with some guns to defend himself, then as I'm walking away, turn and say: "Sorry we couldn't provide you with ammunition, but if we budgeted for it, it might upset someone. You understand right?"

[White Doors]

The tax-free savings is a farce to say the least. It's a tidbit that's been tossed to the public as a way to placate us. Personally, I really don't mind our tax system; it's part of what separates us from the Americans. We pay more in taxes, but we expect more in return. I'd rather walk in to a hospital and know that I'll receive the attention I need, than save a few bucks here and there.

My largest concern over the budget this year is the squeeze on what was initially promised to our defense budget in '06. The conservatives seem awfully keen to throw our troops around like a bargaining tool to the UN, but they're not very willing to follow through on budgeting those commitments. We have an ever growing border in Canada that an ever aging fleet can't defend. We have UN commitments we can hardly keep up to in the Navy. We send under geared troops to a war-torn country and then ignore them at budget time because we 'don't want to spark an election over Afghanistan.' Guess what? As leaders of our country, it's your duty and responsibility to fight the fights that need fighting; not to glaze over portions of a budget that might make a wave or two. I'd like to stick Harper and his crew in a fox hole in Afghanistan with some guns to defend himself, then as I'm walking away, turn and say: "Sorry we couldn't provide you with ammunition, but if we budgeted for it, it might upset someone. You understand right?"

Well....

When was the last time you were in the hospital? And it's go tnothing to do with 'saving bucks' here and there and everythign to do with the level of service you get. We need the public system we have now and a parallel private one as well.

As far as our troops are concerned, have you asked THEM how they feel? Remember it was the liberals who committed the troops there and it was the liberals who have decimated the forces over the years. In fact, the conservatives have gone on a wild spending spree for upgrading our capabilities and it's about time.

But your target for villification of the state of our armed forces is on the wrong party.

[Rovik]

This is a typical Conservative budget, and sadly supported by their lapdogs of late, the Liberals.

There is nothing in this budget for the people who need it the most: the poor and low incomers. There are no monies to help toward affordable housing, no increase in minimum wage for the working poor and no improvements to the child care system. And the incentive to buy clean cars with a rebate has been killed. If one person recieved this rebate, then it has been a success (as that is one small step in helping the environment.)

As much as many of you try to ridicule or discount the NDP, they are absolutely right in what they say about this budget.