CPP-federal or provincial?

[Topaz]

The province of Ontario says the CPP should have a boost but the feds say not. I'm wondering if it would be better for Canadians if the CPP fund 185 billion-200 billion be divided up among the provinces and territories and let the provinces take it over?? OR would it be better for the feds to reduce the income rate for seniors, so they can keep their pensions to live on? Any other ideas?? http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/finance-ministers-fail-to-reach-cpp-consensus-ontario-says-it-will-act-alone-1.1595304

[Boges]

I wouldn't trust the Ontario government with the CPP. They'd spend the money planning on building and then cancelling windmills.

Edited December 17, 2013 by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied Opening Post

[jacee]

CPP should remain federal if we want 'equality' for Canadians.

Edited December 17, 2013 by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied Opening Post

[overthere]

Alberta should pay for everything.

[Keepitsimple]

Sousa and Wynne are just trying to drum up a fake "caring" issue for the election - and turn the channel on their incompetence and corruption. They have absolutely no intention of going down that road - unless they actually want to create yet another boondoggle that will suck even more money from our wallets.

Sousa also said he was "shocked" to find that his equalization payments were reduced by about $650 million (from abour $20 Billion). Well Mr. Sousa - that's less than the $2 per day Tim Horton's coffee that you said would pay for the $1.1 billion dollar Gas Plant crime. These guys are incredible!

Edited December 17, 2013 by Keepitsimple

[jacee]

Alberta should pay for everything.

[Shady]

I agree. You can't trust the Ontario provincial government with anything. Bunch of crooks and liars.

[Argus]

It should stay federal. And yes, they should increase both contribution levels and payment levels. However, I don't think business should be paying into this fund on a 'per employee' basis. That's a tax on jobs which discourages companies from hiring. That doesn't mean I believe corporate taxes should go down. But the amount should be spread amongst them as general increase to corporate taxes to make up for removing their per employee contribution.

Ontario's idea would likely discourage job creation even further, especially for larger organizations which could choose to employee people in other provinces or in the US instead.

Edited December 17, 2013 by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied Opening Post

[ReeferMadness]

WTG, Wynne. Someone needs to show some leadership in this country and it sure won't be Chairman Harper. If the provinces get together and start the ball rolling, the feds (not necessarily this bunch, but perhaps the next government) will have no choice but to catch up.

Just like medicare.

[Bonam]

And yes, they should increase both contribution levels and payment levels.

No thanks.

Edited December 18, 2013 by Bonam

[August1991]

The province of Ontario says the CPP should have a boost but the feds say not. I'm wondering if it would be better for Canadians if the CPP fund 185 billion-200 billion be divided up among the provinces and territories and let the provinces take it over?

Huh? Topaz, you raise several questions/points.

1. Who should control the billions of savings of ordinary Canadians? Who should have the power to give a million here or a million there? Who should pick winners?

2. In fact, the Quebec government already has a scheme to control its pension fund. For better or worse.

3. IMHO, Flaherty is right. The CPP/RRQ is a regressive payroll tax. Paul Martin managed to raise the contribution to 10% because some foolish English-Canadians (sorry to seem anti-Liberal partisan) think federal Liberals are "progressive but wise".

Edited December 18, 2013 by August1991

[jacee]

It should stay federal. And yes, they should increase both contribution levels and payment levels.

However, I don't think business should be paying into this fund on a 'per employee' basis.

That would be a huge reduction in contributions.

How do you reconcile your two statements?

.

[Keepitsimple]

That would be a huge reduction in contributions.

How do you reconcile your two statements?

.

If you read the whole post, it was pretty clear to me. At this stage of a slow and fragile economic recovery, do you have any ideas other than directly taxing companies - 50% of which are small business owners? How do you propose to mitigate the effect on them - or do you just not care?

[PIK]

Sousa and Wynne are just trying to drum up a fake "caring" issue for the election - and turn the channel on their incompetence and corruption. They have absolutely no intention of going down that road - unless they actually want to create yet another boondoggle that will suck even more money from our wallets.

Sousa also said he was "shocked" to find that his equalization payments were reduced by about $650 million (from abour $20 Billion). Well Mr. Sousa - that's less than the $2 per day Tim Horton's coffee that you said would pay for the $1.1 billion dollar Gas Plant crime. These guys are incredible!

The worst thing about it, the people of the 416 will fall for it.

[Topaz]

What about the Old Age Security? One has to be a resident for 40 years so maybe it would be better for the OAS to get the boost and not CPP, which not all Canadians will get it. Thoughts?

[Smallc]

That only costs the taxpayer more money, so no.

[Argus]

If you read the whole post, it was pretty clear to me. At this stage of a slow and fragile economic recovery, do you have any ideas other than directly taxing companies - 50% of which are small business owners? How do you propose to mitigate the effect on them - or do you just not care?

Payroll taxes should be eliminated. Tax corporations on profits, not on how many employees they have.

[August1991]

What about the Old Age Security? One has to be a resident for 40 years so maybe it would be better for the OAS to get the boost and not CPP, which not all Canadians will get it. Thoughts?

Topaz, you are correct to say that OAP is based on years of residency.

Is that fair? Is it fair that some Canadian citizens receive more money than other Canadian citizens - simply because of "Canadianess"?

Then again, the OAP is clawed back for rich people. Is that fair?

====

If someone is careful in life, makes good, wise choices - why should that person give money to/receive less than a stubborn idiot who made bad choices?

A generous OAP/GAINS is a bad message to send to people: "Have no fear because if you completely screw up your life and make bad choices, the State will take care of you in your old life."

A society with such a policy is not sustainable.

Edited December 21, 2013 by August1991

[August1991]

Payroll taxes should be eliminated. Tax corporations on profits, not on how many employees they have.

Payroll taxes are head taxes on working people. I would prefer head taxes on people - working or not.

As Mitt Romney said, "corporations" don't exist. A corporation tax is a tax on someone, a person. Who? Argus, you should check wikipedia for the term "tax incidence".

[Argus]

Payroll taxes are head taxes on working people. I would prefer head taxes on people - working or not.

As Mitt Romney said, "corporations" don't exist. A corporation tax is a tax on someone, a person. Who? Argus, you should check wikipedia for the term "tax incidence".

I'm aware of the theory, for I once subscribed to it myself. But bear in mind many of the 'owners' of Canada's corporations reside outside Canada. Even within Canada, given the low taxation rates on dividends and capital gains, and the numerous accounting tricks used to defer these, result in a lower rate of taxation for the wealthy. Historically, nation states relied on corporate taxes. Individual income taxes didn't come into play until the twentieth century.

[August1991]

I'm aware of the theory, for I once subscribed to it myself. But bear in mind many of the 'owners' of Canada's corporations reside outside Canada. Even within Canada, given the low taxation rates on dividends and capital gains, and the numerous accounting tricks used to defer these, result in a lower rate of taxation for the wealthy. Historically, nation states relied on corporate taxes. Individual income taxes didn't come into play until the twentieth century.

Argus, you raise a different issue here: tax avoidance.

For starters, should the State tax wealth or should it tax income? That is, if I have $2 million wealth invested in the stock market/GICs or I own a $2 million house, should the State tax this asset? Or should it tax the stream of income from this asset? That is, if the $2 million GIC investment generates 5% annually - or the house generates "housing benefits/rental service" - should the State tax this revenue stream?

Argus, who is "rich"? What's "fair"?

=====

I have no problem with governments imposing various user fees, environmental or car registration charges or even taxes on gasoline. But when the State tries to "equal the playing field" by making the "rich" pay more (and that ultimately is your complaint Argus), then the law of unintended consequences eventually imposes its pernicious logic.

Edited January 7, 2014 by August1991