Conservative Budget Surplus

[Accountability Now]

Not their money yet? Where did the Government of Canada get the money in the first place?

Also, personal dig aside, I still fail to see why you continue to compare a Government to a business

Canada gets its money from the tax payer in exchange for services and infrastructure with some of those costs being realized over a longer period than a year. As such Canada's costs to provide you those services adjust annually however our taxes do not. How do you think the 'voting' public would like taxes that vary significantly.

I mostly compare it to business because that's the way it should be. A public corporation that has to be accountable to its shareholders with its revenue, costs and overall profit. I also showed you that individuals act the same way by trying to reduce their debt but you didn't take that one either. So is there anything that you feel it appropriately compares to?

[Guest Derek L]

Canada gets its money from the tax payer in exchange for services and infrastructure with some of those costs being realized over a longer period than a year. As such Canada's costs to provide you those services adjust annually however our taxes do not. How do you think the 'voting' public would like taxes that vary significantly.

So Canada get's it money form Canadians.....Good. And if the Government of Canada gets more than enough money to cover it's expenses, why can't tax payers get some of their money back?

I mostly compare it to business because that's the way it should be. A public corporation that has to be accountable to its shareholders with its revenue, costs and overall profit. I also showed you that individuals act the same way by trying to reduce their debt but you didn't take that one either. So is there anything that you feel it appropriately compares to?

Ahh....because it should be......I see

Now a business sole purpose is to generate profit……..So you feel Government should generate profit? I don’t, as such, the comparison is flawed.

[Accountability Now]

So Canada get's it money form Canadians.....Good. And if the Government of Canada gets more than enough money to cover it's expenses, why can't tax payers get some of their money back?

Ahh....because it should be......I see

Now a business sole purpose is to generate profit..So you feel Government should generate profit? I dont, as such, the comparison is flawed.

We just had numerous years of deficit. Clearly Canada does not have enough money to cover its expenses. Again...you think it that deficit just goes away? Never mind...you never seem to answer questions anyway.

Again...there are non-profit businesses. Ever heard of that? You should have since this is the second time i have nentioned it. Of course I'm still waiting for your idea of a good comparison but you don't really seem to have a lot to offer here.

[Guest Derek L]

We just had numerous years of deficit. Clearly Canada does not have enough money to cover its expenses. Again...you think it that deficit just goes away? Never mind...you never seem to answer questions anyway.

Do you know the difference between deficit and debt.......and well we're at it, surplus? Perhaps learn those terms prior to preaching tax policy.

Again...there are non-profit businesses. Ever heard of that? You should have since this is the second time i have nentioned it. Of course I'm still waiting for your idea of a good comparison but you don't really seem to have a lot to offer here.

So you went from comparing Government to business and now a non-profit…….Great, does this mean Revenue Canada will start collecting taxes in a barrel at a shopping mall

Edited November 16, 2013 by Derek L

[Accountability Now]

Do you know the difference between deficit and debt.......and well we're at it, surplus? Perhaps learn those terms prior to preaching tax policy.

So you went from comparing Government to business and now a non-profit.Great, does this mean Revenue Canada will start collecting taxes in a barrel at a shopping mall

Clearly you don't understand the difference. The past deficits we've had over the recent years are just magically gone because we had one year of surplus? Ya...they just go into that debt thing which you don't believe is real....right? I would hate to see your personal credit rating as debt obviously is a fantasy word for you.

As for businesses, I've used private business, public, non-profit....and you still offer nothing. I trust Revenue Canada won't take your job from collecting by the barrel. Don't worry!

[waldo]

Great, does this mean Revenue Canada will start collecting taxes in a barrel at a shopping mall

yes, a shopping mall barrel may be apropos... given both of the examples you keep hyping are not one-offs, that they're long-term revenue loss vehicles for the Canadian government. What grouping of Canadians do you claim will benefit from the two Harper Conservative tax proposal examples you keep hyping (income splitting and TFSA limit increases)?

[Guest Derek L]

yes, a shopping mall barrel may be apropos... given both of the examples you keep hyping are not one-offs, that they're long-term revenue loss vehicles for the Canadian government.

Exactly………of course the one exemption, TFSA are monies already taxed…..

What grouping of Canadians do you claim will benefit from the two Harper Conservative tax proposal examples you keep hyping (income splitting and TFSA limit increases)?

With the 50k limit, clearly middle class suburban voters Canadians.......The Bush tax cuts, but more palatable to political sensibilities of course

[waldo]

Exactly………of course the one exemption, TFSA are monies already taxed…..

With the 50k limit, clearly middle class suburban voters Canadians.......The Bush tax cuts, but more palatable to political sensibilities of course

no - example analysis that suggests both Harper Conservative proposal items you continue to hype will not benefit, proportionally, the middle class.

re: your income splitting Harper Conservative proposal hype: "At an estimated annual cost to federal revenues of $2.7 billion, the funds from income splitting could be much more effectively and equitably spent on refundable tax credits for daycare or direct funding to the provinces to improve daycare provision. That is, if the true intention is to assist families with the greatest need in raising their children."

The income-splitting proposal would allow couples with one or more children to shift up to $50,000 per year from the higher-earning to the lower-earning partner for tax purposes. If the two partners were in different tax-rate brackets, some savings in their combined taxes would result.

Who would not benefit from this proposal? Well, according to research by the C.D. Howe Institute’s Alexandre Laurin and myself, fully 85 per cent of all Canadian households: single persons, sole parents, low-earning couples, childless couples and even higher-income couples with children where both partners are in the same tax bracket.

Who would gain? Our estimates show the benefits would accrue disproportionately to higher-income one-earner couples. More than 40 per cent of total benefits would go to the top quartile of families by income, with the largest annual tax savings of $6,500 going to one-earner couples with taxable incomes above $185,000.

Thus, the income-splitting proposal would direct most benefits to couples who least need support for their children (high income with one spouse at home) and minimal if any benefits to families with the greatest need. Even worse, by raising their effective tax rate, the scheme would discourage married women from entering or remaining in the workforce, thus reinforcing traditional gender roles.

re: your TFSA limit doubling Harper Conservative proposal hype: "The revenue cost of doubling the TFSA limits? While beginning small in the early years, the cost would rise steadily over time as more funds accumulated tax-free in TFSAs, with the ultimate figure running into multiple billions of dollars annually..."

analysis in the 2012 Canadian Tax Journal found the benefits would also be disproportionately captured by the highest income earners and wealth holders. At its current level, the TFSA along with tax provisions for savings in workplace pensions and RRSPs is more than adequate to cover the retirement needs of low, moderate, and middle-income earners — if they save to the full allowed limits.

The main gainers from a doubled TFSA limit would be individuals with incomes above $180,000 who are constrained by existing tax-sheltered limits. And many of them would simply shift existing taxable assets into tax-sheltered TFSAs rather than increase their total savings. So any stimulus to investment in the Canadian economy is likely to be similarly muted.

[Guest Derek L]

no - example analysis that suggests both Harper Conservative proposal items you continue to hype will not benefit, proportionally, the middle class.

re: your income splitting Harper Conservative proposal hype: "At an estimated annual cost to federal revenues of $2.7 billion, the funds from income splitting could be much more effectively and equitably spent on refundable tax credits for daycare or direct funding to the provinces to improve daycare provision. That is, if the true intention is to assist families with the greatest need in raising their children."

re: your TFSA limit doubling Harper Conservative proposal hype: "The revenue cost of doubling the TFSA limits? While beginning small in the early years, the cost would rise steadily over time as more funds accumulated tax-free in TFSAs, with the ultimate figure running into multiple billions of dollars annually..."

Of course higher income earners would benefit the most in terms of actual savings realized as found in a dollar figure, per your example of the 180k family realizing a savings of ~6.5k a year, but one must not overlook the benefit to all those families in the 50k-80k range realizing ~2k-3k a year in annual savings……

As I said earlier, 15-20 years ago for my own family, $2000-$3000 dollars saved a year in taxes would have been a mortgage payment or two…or car payments for a good chunk of the year…or put towards a family trip to see Mickey etc

Now do you really think the average, middle income family/voter won’t support such a notion? As I said prior, I really hope (for entertainment value) the Federal Liberals and NDP campaign against such a tax policy.

[BC_chick]

I appreciate your opinion, however considering the state of the world economy over the last 5 years I think we fared pretty well.

Thanks to a manufactured housing bubble.

Edited November 17, 2013 by BC_chick

[Argus]

I really have very little patience for Baby Boomers who think they should get tax cuts now that there's a surplus. Go do a backflip into an empty pool, Baby Boomers.

My view on tax cuts is: no to another cut in the GST, and no new tax credits or benefits or exemptions.

If there is a tax cut, it should be a cut to the marginal rates for low and moderate income Canadians, and nothing more.

-k

While I'm against tax cuts too, and in fact, would like to see the GST increased to help pay down the debt, I'm against any further cuts for low income Canadians. With a third of Canadians already paying no income tax, and getting refunds for the GST we already have too many people with no real interest in how money is being collected or spent. Hey, it's not like it's THEIR money, after all.

There was an American once who made the claim "No taxation without representation". I believe in the wisdom of that, but there's also some truth in the reverse "No representation without taxation". If you don't contribute anything to the pot why should you get a say in how it's being spent?

[Argus]

So Canada get's it money form Canadians.....Good. And if the Government of Canada gets more than enough money to cover it's expenses, why can't tax payers get some of their money back?

Because it would be fiscally prudent to start paying down your credit cards rather than simply be pleased that after making the minimum payment you still have some money left to go buy a bigger TV.

People seem to presume the extraordinarily low interest rates will remain in place indefinitely. They're already rising, and they don't have to rise much given the size of our enormous debt to cause a massive increase in debt servicing costs. The prudent thing to do is to get that debt down before that happens.

[Guest Derek L]

Because it would be fiscally prudent to start paying down your credit cards rather than simply be pleased that after making the minimum payment you still have some money left to go buy a bigger TV.

And nobody said we shouldn’t allocate some of the surplus to the debt, as nowhere did someone suggest Canada purchase a proverbial tv.

People seem to presume the extraordinarily low interest rates will remain in place indefinitely. They're already rising, and they don't have to rise much given the size of our enormous debt to cause a massive increase in debt servicing costs. The prudent thing to do is to get that debt down before that happens.

Can not the same be said over Canadian household debt?

[GostHacked]

So Canada get's it money form Canadians.....Good.

Partly. The Canadian government generates revenue through taxes. The national debt load means we are borrowing money to pay for past deficits and when a surplus is has, it gets put to other things instead of paying down this debt.

And if the Government of Canada gets more than enough money to cover it's expenses, why can't tax payers get some of their money back?

Do you do your personal finances this way? If you carry a heavy debt load, do you put money on that or squander it on other less important things?

Now a business sole purpose is to generate profit……..So you feel Government should generate profit? I don’t, as such, the comparison is flawed.

They should generate a small profit or break even at least. There is no reason this nation needs to be billions of dollars in debt. But then there is another thing of revisiting what public employees make. And many are cushy paid jobs with some great benefits.

Cities run trying to make a profit or stuff would never get done. But the city borrows and the province borrows and the nation borrows...... The City of Ottawa is a corporation.

[socialist]

That, coupled with income splitting and more seats out West, and as I've been saying since the last election, the current Government will return with an even larger mandate in 2015.

Trudeau is gaining momentum out west. He will win a number of seats in Alberta, Sask, and Man. in 2015. No way in hell the CPC wins another majority in the next 25 years. Thank goodness.

[Guest Derek L]

Partly. The Canadian government generates revenue through taxes. The national debt load means we are borrowing money to pay for past deficits and when a surplus is has, it gets put to other things instead of paying down this debt.

And nobody said we won't put a portion of our surplus to use servicing our debt.

Do you do your personal finances this way? If you carry a heavy debt load, do you put money on that or squander it on other less important things?

Certainly…….We paid our mortgage, car payments, bills etc, but didn’t use all “surplus funds” to make extra payments at the expense of such things as family vacations, entertainment, going out for dinner etc.

Do you?

They should generate a small profit or break even at least. There is no reason this nation needs to be billions of dollars in debt. But then there is another thing of revisiting what public employees make. And many are cushy paid jobs with some great benefits.

Sure, I've not a issues with the Federal Government having a contingency “cushion”, but 3+ Billion is not a cushion, especially when middle income Canadians have high personal debt……..As I said earlier, Canadian household debt is a greater potential threat to our economy then the National debt.

Cities run trying to make a profit or stuff would never get done. But the city borrows and the province borrows and the nation borrows...... The City of Ottawa is a corporation.

Yet Government at all levels is not a business.

[Topaz]

Correct me if I'm wrong but when the Libs had to pay of the 40 Billion left by the PC's, they did it on the backs of the military. These Conservatives may have a surplus, I still think its the 3.1 bil mis-placed funds, and today we have over 1.3 million jobless Canadians, Food Banks can't keep up, more unemployment coming, so what so good about this time around of having a surplus when Canadians are hurting? The minister said the provinces will still get their transfers, he won't do what he Liberals did, but the feds have many hidden taxes in their over-sized budgets so we are getting hit no matter what level of government you look at.

[Bob Macadoo]

Certainly.We paid our mortgage, car payments, bills etc, but didnt use all surplus funds to make extra payments at the expense of such things as family vacations, entertainment, going out for dinner etc.

Do you?

Actually your analogy is inaccurate. In this case do you cut you employer a refund cheque and say "Thanks Boss but I covered all my expenses this year (Monthly debts, vacations, TVs, etc.), you can have the rest back. Don't worry it looks like I won't need it next year too, could you reduce my salary accordingly? Thanks see you on Monday."

Personally I'd prefer to take that "undeserved" extra cash lay it down in an investment and after it matures plop it as a lumpsum on my mortgage or an F-35 whichever is cheaper, but I'm some economic illiterate so what do I know.

Edited November 17, 2013 by Bob Macadoo

[Guest Derek L]

Actually your analogy is inaccurate. In this case do you cut you employer a refund cheque and say "Thanks Boss but I covered all my expenses this year (Monthly debts, vacations, TVs, etc.), you can have the rest back. Don't worry it looks like I won't need it next year too, could you reduce my salary accordingly? Thanks see you on Monday."

Well no, it isn't......read the question I was responding to.......and your attempt at a analogy is skewed.......The Boss (Canadian taxpayer) doesn't let the employees (Canadian Government) keep the profits (outside of their agreed pay) and do with it as they please in the hopes the Boss/company will some how benefit.

[Bob Macadoo]

Well no, it isn't......read the question I was responding to.......and your attempt at a analogy is skewed.......The Boss (Canadian taxpayer) doesn't let the employees (Canadian Government) keep the profits (outside of their agreed pay) and do with it as they please in the hopes the Boss/company will some how benefit.

This is the premise you argue against, you don't want the employee to keep the remaining balance (it's not profit) to benefit the boss (eg. A new jobs plan, lower debt servicing, etc.). IMO elections aren't based on hopes, they are based on meeting expectations for the remaining balance.

[Guest Derek L]

This is the premise you argue against, you don't want the employee to keep the remaining balance (it's not profit) to benefit the boss (eg. A new jobs plan, lower debt servicing, etc.). IMO elections aren't based on hopes, they are based on meeting expectations for the remaining balance.

Almost right.......As I've said many a times, to many a poster, I've no issue with the Government using a portion of the funds to service the debt, after another targeted tax cut for Canadians.

As to expectations, do you think enough middle class Canadians would prefer not to have a tax cut? There are your expectations.

Edited November 17, 2013 by Derek L

[Bob Macadoo]

Almost right.......As I've said many a times, to many a poster, I've no issue with the Government using a portion of the funds to service the debt, after another targeted tax cut for Canadians.

As to expectations, do you think enough middle class Canadians would prefer not to have a tax cut? There are your expectations.

Right, you believe the Bosses should get their money back whether its all of it 50% of it or whatever, no matter the situation or realistic forecast for next fiscal year. My expectations are different than your expectations which is why you'll donate $100 to the CPC for a $25 tax break. I do believe middle class would not expect the money back if a logical, realistic goal was set aside for the money to benefit the public. however if they see it spent on Gazebos and Fake Lakes they sure as hell would prefer an extra Timmie's. The entire basis of elections. Agree to disagree. Edited November 17, 2013 by Bob Macadoo

[Guest Derek L]

Right, you believe the Bosses should get their money back whether its all of it 50% of it or whatever, no matter the situation or realistic forecast for next fiscal year. My expectations are different than your expectations which is why you'll donate $100 to the CPC for a $25 tax break. I do believe middle class would not expect the money back if a logical, realistic goal was set aside for the money to benefit the public. however if they see it spent on Gazebos and Fake Lakes they sure as hell would prefer an extra Timmie's. The entire basis of elections. Agree to disagree.

Like National Daycare?

Anyways, like I've said prior, I hope the Federal Liberals and NDP share in your "expectations"

[Jimmy Wilson]

How popular are tax increases amongst the voting public?

Personal tax rates or corporate tax rates?

[Jimmy Wilson]

So who's money is it? Also, I fail to see why you compare government to a company, fore as pointed out earlier, Government is not intended to "make a profit".

Then you'll have ask your neoliberal compatriots to stop demanding "government should be run like a business!"...

It shouldn't!!!...Businesses/corporations are soulless aggregations of business...Profit centre's...Government of any stripe cannot descend to that level...

And as far as "who's money is it?" goes...At the moment,it's whoever is holding our public debt...

Edited November 18, 2013 by Jimmy Wilson