RESP's - going to be tax deductible?

[Argus]

The Liberals may have hit political pay dirt on this one, they propose tax cuts then can blame the government for screwing up the economy as this could put the country into a deficit position.

It's just a minor detail that this will reduce the fed's revenues by hundreds of millions, which most

Canadians will ignore. Therefore the Grits get all the political benefits of proposing a tax cut, without the minor detail/inconvenience of having to balance the budget.

It is nice though that the Liberals are pushing a conservative agenda of lower taxes LOL but it does beg the question: should the opposition be able to set tax policies through private member's bills?

This is all because the idiot Speaker said this wasn't a money bill - even though it would cost the government a billion dollars or so. Private members bills aren't allowed if they're money bills and no doubt the government was counting on him to rule this bill out of order but the Speaker screwed up.

This is not the kind of lower taxes a conservative ought to be pushing anyway. What I'd do for lower taxes is put the GST back to 7% and then cut payroll taxes. As for university students, the government should put more money into grants - for economically and scientifically important programs. There ought to be a higher level of grant available to those taking computer science, commerce and medicine as opposed to those taking English literature, sociology and womens studies.

[Argus]

It'll just show everybody how the Conservative's carrot-on-a-stick polices are just nothing more than a smoke screen. This new bill will really benefit middle-class parents and the Conservatives are against it. They had $14 billion surplus and they say the RESP bill is too expensive?

There is no such thing as a surplus when you owe half a trillion dollars.

[jdobbin]

It'll just show everybody how the Conservative's carrot-on-a-stick polices are just nothing more than a smoke screen. This new bill will really benefit middle-class parents and the Conservatives are against it. They had $14 billion surplus and they say the RESP bill is too expensive?

They certainly will a difficult time explaining why TFSA is good, RESP is bad.

Wish they had stuck to just reducing income taxes.

[jdobbin]

This is all because the idiot Speaker said this wasn't a money bill - even though it would cost the government a billion dollars or so. Private members bills aren't allowed if they're money bills and no doubt the government was counting on him to rule this bill out of order but the Speaker screwed up.

I guess the Tories shouldn't have supported the Speaker for his position when they were having elections.

[scribblet]

I guess the Tories shouldn't have supported the Speaker for his position when they were having elections.

Get real, it could be any speaker, they can't foresee the future.

The CPC I think, can put an amendment into the budget and turn it into a confidence motion. They are not saying it's bad, they are saying that it wasn't in the budget so the money is not accounted for, the Liberals know that. Let's see if they will be willing to bring down the gov't over it when it becomes a confidence issue in an amendment.

[jdobbin]

Get real, it could be any speaker, they can't foresee the future.

They could look at evidence of the past. This Speaker was thought to be less informed on rules of the House and too timid on decorum. The Tories supported him anyway.

The CPC I think, can put an amendment into the budget and turn it into a confidence motion. They are not saying it's bad, they are saying that it wasn't in the budget so the money is not accounted for, the Liberals know that. Let's see if they will be willing to bring down the gov't over it when it becomes a confidence issue in an amendment.

How? It has already passed the House. If the Senate passes it, it is law.

[scribblet]

They can wrap a repeal into the budget implementation bill, which still has to come before the House. The latter is a confidence bill and would force the Liberals to choose between the RESP legislation and an election.

There is a possibility, but not probability that the Senate could send it back with an amendment.

An uncosted bill such as this would be a liability, and would push the economy close to deficit. Such bills have to be costed in with everything else, not thrown in after the budget has been costed out and passed.

[daniel]

...

An uncosted bill such as this would be a liability, and would push the economy close to deficit. ...

It wouldn't be so bad if the Tories weren't squandering the $14billion surplus down to only $2billion.

[Bryan]

An uncosted bill such as this would be a liability, and would push the economy close to deficit. Such bills have to be costed in with everything else, not thrown in after the budget has been costed out and passed.

And that is the real agenda behind it. The Liberals approved the budget, then tried to tack on billions in spending after the fact through the back door. They are just using it for PR, so they can make the Conservatives look bad no matter what. If the CPC kills it, the LPC can claim they don't care about poor families educating their kids. If it goes into law, they can claim the CPC can't control their finances.

[scribblet]

And that is the real agenda behind it. The Liberals approved the budget, then tried to tack on billions in spending after the fact through the back door. They are just using it for PR, so they can make the Conservatives look bad no matter what. If the CPC kills it, the LPC can claim they don't care about poor families educating their kids. If it goes into law, they can claim the CPC can't control their finances.

Exactly, this one isn't bad strategy for a party so hungry for power they would willingly put the country into a deficit to further their own agenda.

[jdobbin]

Exactly, this one isn't bad strategy for a party so hungry for power they would willingly put the country into a deficit to further their own agenda.

Think the Tories are doing that all by themselves by their GST cut and and spending like drunken sailors.

[daniel]

Think the Tories are doing that all by themselves by their GST cut and and spending like drunken sailors.

Plus their squandering of the budget surplus doesn't leave much wiggle room for emergencies and other adjustments - good fiscal management eh? Just as I had stated two years ago, the Conservatives will George-Bush the surplus.

[msj]

On second thought, I hope the Liberals in the Senate pass this law and it becomes an election issue. McTeague's proposal is so dumb, and Liberal support is so arrogant, that Harper will win a majority.

If this law passes, Stephen Harper is guaranteed to win a majority. Riverwind's assessment above is correct and in a campaign, it would become obvious to all.

There is nothing in the Liberal bill to stop the 20% grant as that was not addressed in the bill (bill linked in original post of this thread).

As such, the bill, as it stands now, is a benefit to all people in that all get a tax deduction and all still get to use the savings grant.

As for the rich supposedly getting this huge benefit - per my post above - of course the rich get a bigger deduction. They pay more tax in the first place.

[Riverwind]

There is nothing in the Liberal bill to stop the 20% grant as that was not addressed in the bill (bill linked in original post of this thread).

The opposition cannot unilaterally cut government tax revenues by $900 million and not expect consequences. If this bill stands the CESG will be cut to pay the bill and the blame rests entirely with the opposition. If the opposition wanted to increase education spending they should have voted down the budget.

In fact, the CPC must oppose this motion on principle because it will be impossible to run a government if the opposition parties are allowed to reallocate billions outside of the budget process whenever they feel like it.

Edited March 9, 2008 by Riverwind

[msj]

The opposition cannot unilaterally cut government tax revenues by $900 million and not expect consequences. If this bill stands the CESG will be cut to pay the bill and the blame rests entirely with the opposition. If the opposition wanted to increase education spending they should have voted down the budget.

In fact, the CPC must oppose this motion on principle because it will be impossible to run a government if the opposition parties are allowed to reallocate billions outside of the budget process whenever they feel like it.

It would seem that the opposition can pass bills that do cut government revenues. Especially when the "governing" party isn't around. This bill is in the Senate you know.

I think most Canadians won't care about the Parliamentary process details.

They will see the LPC helping out people by giving them a tax deduction while the CPC's whined about a Parliamentary process that they are supposed to show competency in and, due to that incompetency, are going to cut the grants back at the expense of "ordinary Canadians."

It doesn't look good for the CPC.

Fortunately for them it is unlikely to be a major voting issue.

[jdobbin]

In fact, the CPC must oppose this motion on principle because it will be impossible to run a government if the opposition parties are allowed to reallocate billions outside of the budget process whenever they feel like it.

Why stop at principle alone? Why don't they go to the Governor-General and ask for Parliament to be dissolved and say it is a matter of confidence?

Edited March 9, 2008 by jdobbin

[Keepitsimple]

The opposition cannot unilaterally cut government tax revenues by $900 million and not expect consequences. If this bill stands the CESG will be cut to pay the bill and the blame rests entirely with the opposition. If the opposition wanted to increase education spending they should have voted down the budget.

In fact, the CPC must oppose this motion on principle because it will be impossible to run a government if the opposition parties are allowed to reallocate billions outside of the budget process whenever they feel like it.

Absolutely bang on. This was a gross mistake on behalf of the Speaker of the House (who happens to be a Liberal) in that he did not rule this bill to be a money bill. While it doesn't involve new spending - it involves collecting less taxes. If this ruling is allowed to stand, what is to prevent the opposition parties from reducing or eliminating capital gains taxes - or raising the exemption on personal taxes? Both actions would not involve spending per se, but would result in collecting less tax. Finally, it means reducing Provincial tax revenue as well - and they have not even been consulted on the matter. What would McGuinty think of arbitrarily losing hundreds of millions in tax revenue?

[jdobbin]

Absolutely bang on. This was a gross mistake on behalf of the Speaker of the House (who happens to be a Liberal) in that he did not rule this bill to be a money bill. While it doesn't involve new spending - it involves collecting less taxes.

Call an election on the issue.

I oppose RESP as well but if the government feels this is a matter of confidence, they should call an election.

Edited March 9, 2008 by jdobbin

[Keepitsimple]

Call an election on the issue.

I oppose RESP as well but if the government feels this is a matter of confidence, they should call an election.

It does not warrant an election....it warrants an intelligent backlash from the Senate, Provinces and Media to explain the potential impact of such a dangerous precedent......followed by legislation or Parliamentary clarification of what constitutes a money bill.

Edited March 9, 2008 by Keepitsimple

[jdobbin]

It does not warrant an election....it warrants an intelligent backlash from the Senate, Provinces and Media to explain the potential impact of such a dangerous precedent......followed by legislation or Parliamentary clarification of what constitutes a money bill.

I doubt you are going to get that. Most people like tax breaks. If the Tories don't call an election, it is the same argument that they give when the Liberals vote for the budget: implicit support for it.

[Riverwind]

I doubt you are going to get that. Most people like tax breaks. If the Tories don't call an election, it is the same argument that they give when the Liberals vote for the budget: implicit support for it.

The implementation of the bill will be delayed until next year. It will be modified and tabled as part of the budget in 2009. The election will be fought on balancing different priorities and the RESP deduction will get lost on the shuffle.

[jdobbin]

The implementation of the bill will be delayed until next year. It will be modified and tabled as part of the budget in 2009. The election will be fought on balancing different priorities and the RESP deduction will get lost on the shuffle.

In the meatime, it looks like the government opposes tax breaks. I guess the election strategy of saying the Liberals will raise taxes will be countered with the argument that the Tories opposes reducing taxes.

[scribblet]

In the meatime, it looks like the government opposes tax breaks. I guess the election strategy of saying the Liberals will raise taxes will be countered with the argument that the Tories opposes reducing taxes.

The government does NOT oppose tax breaks, this is exactly the kind of thinking that the Liberals are relying on from uninformed taxpayers, quite machiavellian and cute on their part. The gov't opposes changes to a budget allready in process that will result in a liability not accounted for in said budget.

The CPC could turn it to their advantage by paying less off on the national debt to free up money for this new off budget liability, and improve on it's delivery etc. Actually it is amazing that that the NDP and the Bloc would vote for such a conservative measure like tax cuts. It would also demonstrate flexibility in a government which actually wants to represent all the people - not just the CPC. It offers an opportunity and rationale for dropping funding to other less worthy causes.

Harper could also tell the Senate to pass an amended bill or have their fellow liberal-socialist coalition in The House face an election.

[jdobbin]

The government does NOT oppose tax breaks, this is exactly the kind of thinking that the Liberals are relying on from uninformed taxpayers, quite machiavellian and cute on their part. The gov't opposes changes to a budget allready in process that will result in a liability not accounted for in said budget.

Harper could also tell the Senate to pass an amended bill or have their fellow liberal-socialist coalition in The House face an election.

However, you slice it, it looks like the Tories are opposed to tax cuts. It is kind of like how the Tories saying the Liberals are going to raise taxes when Dion thought aloud about reversing the GST. Problem is that they didn't mention that he would decrease income taxes instead.

What's good for the goose.

[Wilber]

It would seem that the opposition can pass bills that do cut government revenues. Especially when the "governing" party isn't around. This bill is in the Senate you know.

I think most Canadians won't care about the Parliamentary process details.

They will see the LPC helping out people by giving them a tax deduction while the CPC's whined about a Parliamentary process that they are supposed to show competency in and, due to that incompetency, are going to cut the grants back at the expense of "ordinary Canadians."

It doesn't look good for the CPC.

Fortunately for them it is unlikely to be a major voting issue.

I disagree completely, it doesn't get any more major than a government not being able to budget because of bills forced through after the fact. If it can be enforced it is the same as defeating the budget which is an automatic election. Canadians will be quite interested in why they are having an election they say they don't want.