Low-income seniors

[Topaz]

Low-income seniors are going to lose their GIS-Guaranteed Income Supplement, if they withdraw funds from their RRIF. Lets say a low-income senior has a income of $13,000.00 and takes $5000.00 out of their RRIF for health care of funeral. The Feds will now add that as income, so now seniors income will be $18,000.00 and then they are above the $15,815.99 threshold for GIS. In Newfoundland and Labrador, low-come seniors who can't get GIS, will lose their drug coverage. There is no excuse to treat seniors like this but then again we are talking about a party that taxed the lowest income earners back in '06!! poverty for seniors is up 25% and the government does this! http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/low-income-seniors-threatened-by-changes-to-federal-income-support/article1814326/

[August1991]

Low-income seniors are going to lose their GIS-Guaranteed Income Supplement, if they withdraw funds from their RRIF.

And what of young Canadians?

Topaz, if you (older Canadians) tax younger Canadians for benefits, what will happen?

The younger Canadians will stop working/avoid taxes, and then there will be no benefit.

----

IOW: You lose, or you lose. Only a fool depends on the State for support.

[dre]

And what of young Canadians?

Topaz, if you (older Canadians) tax younger Canadians for benefits, what will happen?

The younger Canadians will stop working/avoid taxes, and then there will be no benefit.

----

IOW: You lose, or you lose. Only a fool depends on the State for support.

The younger Canadians will stop working/avoid taxes, and then there will be no benefit.

Hmmmm interesting theory. Iv never met someone who quit working because of taxes before.

[Bonam]

Hmmmm interesting theory. Iv never met someone who quit working because of taxes before.

Heh well saying that people will directly just stop working is incorrect but higher tax rates do stifle economic growth.

[dre]

Heh well saying that people will directly just stop working is incorrect but higher tax rates do stifle economic growth.

So can lower tax rates. It depends entirely on what the government does with the money it collects.

[Bryan]

Hmmmm interesting theory. Iv never met someone who quit working because of taxes before.

I've known a lot of them. Not that they quit working entirely (they still need to eat), but only work for cash specifically because they don't want to pay the taxes.

[Smallc]

I've known a lot of them. Not that they quit working entirely (they still need to eat), but only work for cash specifically because they don't want to pay the taxes.

I just love those people. All they've done is pass their tax burden along to someone else....me.

[AngusThermopyle]

What of those who work and pay taxes but also perform a service of some sort for which they recieve renumeration but do not pay taxes on it? How do you feel about those folks?

Personally, the less taxes I can pay the better I like it. We are already overtaxed outrageously, much of which is squandered and wasted, and don't forget that the primary objective of Canadian government appears to be finding new ways to tax us.

As an aside, for all the younger people out there who seem to resent seniors, one day you too will be one.

[Saipan]

The only tax solution is to keep Liberals in Opposition only. Else they will tax us to death.

And also close loop holes that allow someone like Paul Martin to pay millions less in taxes while allowing him to fire Canadians and hiring foreigners just to profit even more.

[Topaz]

The only tax solution is to keep Liberals in Opposition only. Else they will tax us to death.

And also close loop holes that allow someone like Paul Martin to pay millions less in taxes while allowing him to fire Canadians and hiring foreigners just to profit even more.

I think YOU are misinformed about taxes. It was the Tories who went after the lowest income earners and rise their taxes. They thought no one would care but they found out different and took it away.

[Topaz]

And what of young Canadians?

Topaz, if you (older Canadians) tax younger Canadians for benefits, what will happen?

The younger Canadians will stop working/avoid taxes, and then there will be no benefit.

----

IOW: You lose, or you lose. Only a fool depends on the State for support.

[/quote

Did you ever stop to think that maybe some of these low-income seniors, are low-income because of the polices of the Feds or provincial governments. Some of them may had a good job but lost it because the government allowed foreign ownership which could have allowed these people to lose their jobs. Once you hit the age of 50, its very hard to find another job. The problem now is this Tory government has over spent and now the taxpayers are the ones paying for it. Do you think these politicians are hurting financially? If the governments never ran the finances in the RED, things like this wouldn't hav eto happen. BTW, the minsiter has put a HOLD on this after she learned of the loud voices were saying BUT after the election, it will go ahead I'm sure.

[Wilber]

Low-income seniors are going to lose their GIS-Guaranteed Income Supplement, if they withdraw funds from their RRIF. Lets say a low-income senior has a income of $13,000.00 and takes $5000.00 out of their RRIF for health care of funeral. The Feds will now add that as income, so now seniors income will be $18,000.00 and then they are above the $15,815.99 threshold for GIS. In Newfoundland and Labrador, low-come seniors who can't get GIS, will lose their drug coverage. There is no excuse to treat seniors like this but then again we are talking about a party that taxed the lowest income earners back in '06!! poverty for seniors is up 25% and the government does this! http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/low-income-seniors-threatened-by-changes-to-federal-income-support/article1814326/

You can argue over whether the amounts are reasonable but an income supplement is just that. If your income is over the limit, you are not entitled to the supplement. A RRIF is income. The money invested to provide the RRIF was tax exempt, that is why it is regarded as income when it is withdrawn. Health care expenses are tax deductible which in this case would not effect the net income. You probably have a point when it comes to a funeral.

[guyser]

They juat got smart....from MSN News...

"The federal Conservative government has backed away from a plan to cut a portion of federal income support for seniors.

Minister of Human Resources Diane Finley made the announcement during question period Friday in the House of Commons, after being pressed by opposition members. '

[Saipan]

I think YOU are misinformed about taxes. It was the Tories who went after the lowest income earners and rise their taxes. They thought no one would care but they found out different and took it away.

You may 'think' that but actually YOU are misinformed about taxes. Federal Liberals taxed us 64 times under Chretein. Chretien only promissed to kill GST, but in fact he's the only one to benefit from it. It took someone like Harper to lower it twice.

[msj]

You may 'think' that but actually YOU are misinformed about taxes. Federal Liberals taxed us 64 times under Chretein. Chretien only promissed to kill GST, but in fact he's the only one to benefit from it. It took someone like Harper to lower it twice.

You're the one who is misinformed.

Back in 1999 the Federal rates/brackets were (using the basic exemption as a starting point for simplicity purposes):

$6,794 to $29,590 of taxable income at 17%

$29,590 to $59,180 at 26%

$59,180+ at 29%

Plus a surtax

So, a single person with $100,000 would pay about $24,303 just in federal income tax.

Now, let's look at 2000 (reintroduction of inflation adjustments to tax brackets and beginning of income tax cuts):

$7,231 to $30,004 at 17%

$30,005 to $60,009 at 25%

$60,009+ at 29%

Plus surtax

So, that single person with $100,000 of taxable income would pay around $23,344 in federal income tax.

Now 2005 (after full implementation of Liberal income tax cuts):

$8,648 to $35,595 at 15% (and remember, in 2006 we paid 15.25% because the CPC increased the tax rate)

$35,596 to $71,190 at 22%

$71,191 to $115,739 at 26%

$115,739+ at 29%

No surtax.

So, that single person with $100,000 of taxable income (and hasn't had a raise in over 6 years) is paying $19,363 in federal income taxes.

-----------------------

But, oh, no, the Liberals never cut income taxes.

Look at the budgets during these Liberal years.

You will find that not only did the above actually happen, but the Liberals also reduced the inclusion rate for capital gains from 75% to 50% and also cut corporate income tax rates.

In fact, the schedule that the CPC have followed to reduce corporate tax rates was announced by the Liberals in (iirc) their 2005 budget.

The CPC changed it a bit (increased the tax cut) because they decided to disallow most businesses to operate as trusts.

Even eligible dividends (which reduce the personal income tax paid on dividends received from Canadian corporations subject to the general income tax rate) was first announced by the Liberals and, thankfully, put into effect by the CPC.

The reason I say thankfully is because the CPC decided to reverse the income tax cut from 16% to 15% that was put into place for 2006 by the Liberals in November of 2005 (2005 had to be left alone at 15% because it was too late for the CPC to change that year after they won the election in early 2006).

Then they reversed themselves and eventually allowed the rate to stand at 15% for 2007 and future years.

IOW, the CPC have shown themselves to be very willing to tax Canadians through income taxes in order to cut the GST tax rate.

And one more thing: that single person making $100,000 per year above - the income tax savings of $4,940 between what would have been paid in 1999 versus what was paid in 2005 is equivalent to that person spending $247,000 on a GST taxable item in 2008 (i.e. after the 2% point decline in GST).

That is, if that person spent $247,000 on, say, a Bentley, then she/he would have saved as much tax under the GST cut as he/she would have gained from the income tax cut. I wonder what the monthly payment would be on that?

Now think about that for a minute - you are likely to earn more money than you spend over your lifetime (at least spend on GST taxable items, at any rate).

So why do the CPC choose to tax us more on our earnings than on when we choose to spend our earnings?

Oh, right, because it is good politics.

[Saipan]

You're the one who is misinformed.

Back in 1999

Chretien became Prime Minister in 1993

[msj]

Chretien became Prime Minister in 1993

And remained PM until 2004 when Paul Martin took over.

He was PM when most of the income tax cuts were announced.

[scribblet]

Policy suspended

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-halts-change-that-would-leave-low-income-seniors-in-lurch/article1815086/.

The new policy meant that if seniors withdrew more than the minimum allowed from their RRIF – which is what a Registered Retirement Savings Plan becomes in retirement – it could affect the threshold for receiving GIS payments, which are meant to ease the financial burden of low-income seniors. In the past, seniors could have their GIS eligibility calculated based on projected income, which did not take into account large RRIF withdrawals

.

[Saipan]

He was PM when most of the income tax cuts were announced.

Why not implemented early? Why just when Liberals were out the door trying to save their skin in last desperate promise?

[Smallc]

Personally, the less taxes I can pay the better I like it. We are already overtaxed outrageously, much of which is squandered and wasted, and don't forget that the primary objective of Canadian government appears to be finding new ways to tax us.

Taxes are lower in Canada than they have been in about 20 years. Canada has lower business taxes than many rich countries, and our personal taxes are about mid pack if not on the better side. We're not over taxed. Personally, I don't mind paying what I'm supposed to, but that's because I realize that I or someone else will have to pay for it somehow anyway.

You think that much money is wanted, but the reality is the vast majority isn't. A country like Canada is very expensive to maintain.

[Topaz]

Canada is expensive to maintain or the politicians? Did anyone know that back in June of '07, the politicians gave themselves a pay increase not to April of that year, no they went back to 2001! The PM gets 42% increase in pay,which gives the PM a wage of 260,000. MP's got a 20% increase to $131,400, and cabinet ministers are making 195,000.00 Under the old rule Chretien would have gotten 96,000 yearly pension, since '07 the PM get 140,000 yearly. Senators make now 105,000 and even though its lower than MP's at 65, Senators can go on long-term disability. All this was passed in a matter of 48hours and yet when you hear about the soldiers, seniors and workers are fighting for, these guys don't have to fight for their meal ticket, they just take the rest of us!

[Smallc]

Canada is expensive to maintain or the politicians? Did anyone know that back in June of '07, the politicians gave themselves a pay increase not to April of that year, no they went back to 2001! The PM gets 42% increase in pay,which gives the PM a wage of 260,000. MP's got a 20% increase to $131,400, and cabinet ministers are making 195,000.00

The numbers are higher than that. Still, Parliament costs very little in the grand scheme of Canada's government.

[msj]

Why not implemented early? Why just when Liberals were out the door trying to save their skin in last desperate promise?

Because they inherited a big deficit in 1993 for which they got under control by 1997?

They cut taxes throughout their 2000 through 2005 budgets/economic updates.

Funny how the CPC "cut" taxes by cutting the GST by 1% point but rescinded (albeit temporarily) the tax cut from 16% to 15% in 2006 before coming to their senses. I suppose that was because they were trying to "save their skin" too.

The fact remains: the Liberals implemented huge income tax cuts, including corporate tax cuts.

The CPC have cut the GST rate, helped hoist the HST on two provinces with bribes, backed down on an income tax increase, backed down on "screwing" seniors over on this topic and driven us back into deficit.

[Saipan]

Because they inherited a big deficit in 1993 for which they got under control by 1997?

Deficit was just one year's worth of interest on the national debt, which btw was HIGHER when Liberal left than in 1993. And that was after Liberals robbed U.I. and pensions and use GST as no one else before or after.

[Oleg Bach]

My worry for the aged might be described as those with failing vision that are now being eaten alive by bed bugs in the city of Toronto...the poor old folks can not even see or feel the sting of the sucking parasites...and no one is caring that some old people do not have simple comfort of a clean bed.